City of Culver City
Staff Report
Mike Balkman Council
Chambers
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
File #: 25-1339, Version: 1 Item #: A-2.
CC - ACTION ITEM: (1) Consideration of a Request from Culver City Unified School District for $2.5 Million to $7.5 Million Per Year from the City of Culver City from Fiscal Year 2025-2026 through Fiscal Year 2027-2028; and (2) Provide Direction to the City Manager as Deemed Appropriate.
Meeting Date: July 14, 2025
Contact Person/Dept.: Jesse Mays, Assistant City Manager Phone Number: City Manager’s Office - (310) 253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No [] Attachments: Yes [X] No []
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (07/10/2025) Department Approval: John Nachbar, City Manager (07/08/2025) _____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (1) consider a request from Culver City Unified School District for $2.5 Million to $7.5 million per year from the City of Culver City from Fiscal Year 2025-2026 through Fiscal Year 2027-2028; and (2) provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND
At the June 16, 2025 meeting of the Culver City Unified School District - City Council Liaison Subcommittee meeting, representatives from Culver City United School District (CCUSD) requested City funding to help fill its budget shortfall. CCUSD’s presentation from the meeting is attached (Attachment 1). The Subcommittee subsequently voted to put consideration of this issue on an upcoming City Council agenda.
CCUSD has presented two potential City funding scenarios:
· $7.5 million for 3 years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 · $2.5 million for 3 years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Under both scenarios, CCUSD offered the City expanded public use of CCUSD facilities, including City of Culver City Printed on 7/10/2025Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-1339, Version: 1 Item #: A-2.
Under both scenarios, CCUSD offered the City expanded public use of CCUSD facilities, including the maintenance and staffing necessary to open school campuses to the public during non-school hours, and additional flexibility for CCUSD to host City Parks, Recreation and Community Services programming. These would be documented in the City’s Memorandum of Understanding with CCUSD, which is currently in the process of being negotiated.
CCUSD described the impact of the City’s funding as giving it time to implement creative revenue generating solutions while maintaining a positive budget certification from the State, continuing benefits for employees, and retaining priority interventions. According to CCUSD, funding at the higher, $7.5 million level would allow CCUSD to avoid major budget cuts, maintain some essential educators for priority interventions, and avoid drawdown of redevelopment funding.
CCUSD cites the following as factors negatively influencing its budget: reduced state discretionary block grants, loss of Federal funding based on changes at the US Department of Education: Title IIA and Title III, increased operational costs, and lower revenue. In response, CCUSD has implemented austerity measures including staff layoffs in 2024 and 2025. They state that the continuation of benefits for employees is at risk. They are unable to meet their state mandated reserves level of at least 3%, which may result in County Office of Education (COE) intervention.
DISCUSSION
Current City Funding to CCUSD
The City’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 includes the following funding for CCUSD:
· Refuse Services $337,500
· Sewer Charges $60,000
· CCUSD Crossing Guards $550,000
· Walk ‘n Rollers Contract $40,000
· Timing System for Plunge $45,000
TOTAL $1,032,500
The City has also allocated General Fund dollars to fund CIP Project PZ941 (Safe Routes to School).
As part of the July 14 Agenda, Council will consider approving a professional services agreement to prepare a Tri-School Traffic Study in the amount of $285,200.
In addition, in Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the City’s Transportation Department subsidized travel for CCUSD students including providing student transportation to and from school and school field trips for a total estimated cost of $1,429,345,. However, most of this funding is not from the City’s General Fund, but rather, from Federal or other funding sources. This program is anticipated to continue in Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
City Funding for School Districts
School districts are funded by a variety of revenues sources:
City of Culver City Printed on 7/10/2025Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-1339, Version: 1 Item #: A-2.
· Property Taxes
o On average, school districts receive 35% of the property tax revenues collected within the district boundaries.
· State Aid
o Revenue provided by the state (the source of which is mainly state income taxes and some sales taxes) to make-up the difference between the amount per student resulting from the school district’s property tax income and the minimum amount per student as established by the state.
· Federal Revenue
o Funding restricted to special education, which is based on the number of special education students, and per-student funding for Title 1-5 students, in which case funding is restricted to those students.
· Other State Revenue
· Other Local Revenue
o Parcel taxes, leases and rentals, interest earnings on the school district’s general fund, foundation donations, and pass through of sales tax measures.
In April 2025, the City engaged Cathy Dominico from Ryland Strategic Business Consulting to provide an overview of school district funding and COE oversight for California school districts including mechanisms available to schools to augment funding when budgetary shortfalls are identified (Attachment 2).
According to Dominico, “It is uncommon for cities to provide substantial unrestricted operating funds to their local school districts.” The funding that City of Santa Monica provides to the Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) has been held-up as an example for Culver City increasing its financial support. Approximately 20-25% of the SMMUSD’s unrestricted funding comes from the City of Santa Monica. However, Dominico states that “this contribution from a city is quite unique” and even though she works in over 150 school districts in the state, “I am not aware of another district in California that receives significant unrestricted funding from their local city.” Culver City’s current funding level is “more in line with other cities in California”.
Attachment 3 is General Fund Income Data from 2023-2024 for Unified School Districts within Los Angeles County, taken from the 2023-2024 LA County Public School Financial Report published by the COE. The data shows that overall, Unified School Districts in LA County received 6.70% of their annual revenue from “Other Local Revenue” (not 32-36%, as shown on page 4 of Attachment 1).
CCUSD received 8.51% of its annual revenue from “Other Local Revenue,” which is greater than the overall total for Unified School Districts in LA County. Santa Monica-Malibu and San Marino Unified School Districts, at 35.78% and 30.77% respectively, are outliers.
The City of Santa Monica’s highly unusually annual contribution to the School District is largely a result of voter approved initiatives. The City of Santa Monica’s approximately $10 million annual contribution (which contributes to the high percentage of Other Local Revenue) is due to Santa Monica’s Measure YY, approved by voters in 2010. Measure YY was an advisory measure asking voters to approve earmarking to the school district one-half of a proposed half-cent sales tax increase (which appeared on the same 2010 ballot as Measure Y, a measure to impose a half-cent sales tax in the City of Santa Monica). In 2022, Santa Monica voters approved Measure GS, a “mansion tax,” increasing the documentary transfer tax rate on the transfers of real property valued at $8 million or more. The language of Measure GS specifically earmarks the first $10 million raised by the tax to the City of Culver City Printed on 7/10/2025Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-1339, Version: 1 Item #: A-2.
more. The language of Measure GS specifically earmarks the first $10 million raised by the tax to the school district. In contrast, Culver City voters have not approved earmarking a portion of any City sales tax or documentary transfer tax to the school district. However, voters in both Santa Monica and Culver City have passed parcel tax measures to provide additional funding to local schools.
CCUSD’s Options for its Budget Shortfall
“School districts typically obtain augmented funding independently from their own taxpayers,” wrote Dominico. CCUSD could seek voter approval for a parcel tax, which is a tax charged per unit of property. In California, parcel taxes are considered special taxes and require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for approval.
CCUSD voters have previously shown strong support for parcel tax measures benefiting CCUSD. In 2018, CCUSD voters approved Measure K by a vote of 75.38% to 24.62%, which levied a parcel tax for seven years at a rate of $189 per parcel per year. In 2024, CCUSD voters approved Measure O by a vote of 83.44% to 16.56%, which extended the $189 annual parcel tax for an additional eight years.
The Measure O parcel tax of $189 per parcel per year raises approximately $2.4 million annually for the school district. An additional parcel tax of $197 per parcel per year might generate an additional $2.5 million annually. A parcel tax of $591 per parcel per year might generate an additional $7.5 million annually.
There is recent precedent for California school district parcel taxes with similar or higher rates. In 2024 alone, voters approved the following parcel taxes in California:
School District $/Year for Parcel w/1,500 SF Structure
Alameda Unified School District $878
Berkeley Unified School District $810
Davis Joint Unified School District $768
Piedmont Unified School District $750
Nicasio School District $748
Lakeside Joint School District $647
Culver City - $7.5 Million (Hypothetical) $591
Culver City - $2.5 Million (Hypothetical) $197
Another option for revenue generation would be expanded leasing of CCUSD property. The 2024- 2025 CCUSD Budget projects revenues from leases and rentals of $1.525 million.
Analysis of CCUSD’s Budget Shortfall
Dominico’s analysis of CCUSD’s budget situation in April 2025 was that “although CCUSD is facing some financial challenges, their financial picture is projected to improve.” She believes that COE intervention, which includes assignment of a fiscal advisor and development of a fiscal recovery plan, can help a district balance its budget and avoid a larger financial problem. In the event of COE involvement:
“It is likely that the COE will recommend a fiscal recovery plan that identifies sufficient budget cuts to bring the ending fund balance back up to the minimum 3% reserve requirement. If the City of Culver City Printed on 7/10/2025Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-1339, Version: 1 Item #: A-2.
cuts to bring the ending fund balance back up to the minimum 3% reserve requirement. If the fiscal recovery plan is not sufficient, the COE will likely assign a fiscal advisor to assist the District in identifying the improvements to the budget to achieve a 3% minimum reserve.
Although the County Superintendent does have “stay” and “rescind” power for districts in financial distress, this power is typically used when a county superintendent believes the board’s action might jeopardize the school district’s financial stability. They do not typically intervene unless it is an extreme situation. It is not until a school district takes an emergency state loan that the school board would lose control of district operations.”
FISCAL ANALYSIS
In the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, General Fund expenditures exceed General Fund revenues by $22.1 million and require the use of the City’s General Fund reserve balances to make up the deficit. The City’s General Fund has no remaining unassigned balance for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026. The City’s Contingency Reserve (meant for emergencies) is projected to be approximately $41.4 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2025-2026. This balance is only 21.6% of the General Fund Operating Budget, which is below the City’s target goal of 30%. Regardless of the outcome of the August 26, 2025 election for the 0.25% sales tax measure, the City will need to consider further budget reductions to address its structural deficit and allow full funding of the City’s Contingency Reserve.
Both CCUSD and the City are facing budget challenges, where tough choices will need to be made by both organizations. The funding commitment CCUSD is requesting would require the City to reduce the level of City services.. Should the City Council decide to provide ongoing funding to CCUSD, Council should direct staff which City programs and/or services should be reduced to fund this new, ongoing obligation. If the City Council desires to provide funding for CCUSD in Fiscal Year 2025-2026, a budget amendment requiring a four-fifths vote would be necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2025-07-14 ATT Liaison Meeting 6.16 CCUSD Presentation
2. 2025-07-14 ATT School District Funding Memo
3. 2025-07-14 ATT LA County Public Schools Financial Report Excerpt
MOTION(S)
That the City Council:
1. Consider the request from Culver City Unified School District for $2.5 Million to $7.5 million per year from the City of Culver City from Fiscal Year 2025-2026 through Fiscal Year 2027-2028; and
2. If approved, direct the City Manager to return to City Council with a budget amendment, including providing direction on the source of the funding and potential expenditure offsets.
City of Culver City Printed on 7/10/2025Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions CUL VER CITY TOGETHERSuccess for all... Takes us all!
Culver City is a destination district:Families choose Culver City because of our successful independentschool system
IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions Second Interim Report Summary:Qualified Budget CertificationLAST LIAISON MEETING REVIEW •March 15 Reduction in Force (RIF) of 39 Full Time Employees (in addition to 2024 RIF)•Austerity measures implemented•Continuation of benefits for employees is at risk•Needed +$1M/year to attain Positive Budget Certification 3% reserves CA State Budget Certification•To stay fiscally stable, districts work to maintain POSITIVE certification status by submiting budget reports that meet 3% reserves over the next three years•Both QUALIFIED and NEGATIVE certifications trigger interventions designed to correct the fiscal trajectory, ranging from external reviews to RECEIVERSHIP•RECEIVERSHIP occurs when the district requires a loan to stay operational. During receivership, the Board and Superintendent lose control of operations and a state administrator is assigned to take charge. This process often results in the closing of schools.New Factors InfluencingDistrict Budgeting•Reduced State Discretionary Block Grant•Loss of Federal funding based on changes at the US Dept of Education: Title IIA and Title III•Increased operational costs/lower revenue IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions CCUSD Reserve
We only meet reserve through reallocation of RDA dollars (which expire at the end of 27-28 school year) AND $4M in cuts annually through 27-28. Otherwise, our budget is negative.Current State of BudgetFor 2024-25:Reserve without additional dollars = 0.46%Reserve using RDA dollars = 3.0%For 2025-26:Reserve without additional dollars = 0.29%Reserve with additional dollars = 3.11% IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions CCUSD’S GENERAL FUND HAS ONL Y5% LOCAL REVENUETHIS IS VERY LOW IN COMPARISON TO THE32-36% LOCAL REVENUEMOST CA SCHOOL DISTRICTS RECEIVEHistorical School Funding across California •Local Funding: 32-36%•State Funding:54-64%•Federal Funding:6-23%* CCUSD 2025-2026 Budget ProposalGeneral Fund Revenue Sources Source: School Services of California
JUNE 10, 2025 BUDGET PROPOSAL HAS MAJOR IMPACT TO STUDENT OUTCOMES IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions 2025 CDE required Fiscal Stability Plan (FSP) is a stop gap•One-time unconventional $3.2Mdrawdown on restricted Redevelopment (RDA) funds•Further painful RIFs and austerity measures of at least$4Mare necessary to meet 3% state mandated reserves and avoid state interventionsIt may be necessary to discontinue crucial support and narrow popular offerings such as•Tutoring & Interventions•Electives & Advanced Placement Classes•Enrichment & Activities Reductions of essential positions to be considered•Administrative Staff•Health and Wellbeing Services
CITY - USDPARTNERSHIPS
SCHOOL COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR SALES TAXJOINT USE AGREEMENT UPDA TEINCLUDE MONETARY COMPONENT SMALL EXPENDITURE RELIEF100% SRTS +$30KGO PASS +$49KFAST TRACK PAID EVENT PARKING MECHANISMSADVERTISING TO INCREASE ENROLLMENTSHARE GRANT WRITING EXPERTISE Partnerships to RET AIN Culver City’s destination district distinction SMMUSD’S JUA IS $10M+ PER YEAR
IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions A Joint Use Partnership that RETAINSCulver City’s destination district distinction CITY’S CONTRIBUTION:$7.5M/YEARFOR 3 YEARS CITY IMPACT:PUBLIC ENJOYS EXPANDED USE OF FACILITIES INCLUDES⚬MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING OF FACILITIES⚬MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR CCUSD TO HOST PRCS PROGRAMS CCUSD IMPACT:THRIVING YOUTH THROUGH⚬POSITIVE BUDGET CERTIFICATION⚬CONTINUED BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES⚬RETENTION OF ESSENTIAL EDUCATORS FOR PRIORITY INTERVENTIONS IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions CITY’S CONTRIBUTION:$2.5M/YEARFOR 3 YEARS CITY IMPACT:PUBLIC ENJOYS EXPANDED USE OF FACILITIES INCLUDES⚬MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING OF FACILITIES⚬MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR CCUSD TO HOST PRCS PROGRAMS CCUSD IMPACT:BUYS TIME TO IMPLEMENT CREATIVE REVENUE GENERATINGSOLUTIONS⚬POSITIVE BUDGET CERTIFICATION⚬CONTINUED BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES⚬RETAINS A FEW PRIORITY INTERVENTIONS⚬RDA DRAWDOWN AND MAJOR REDUCTIONS STILL REQUIRED Reduced Level Joint Use Partnership
IntroductionIntentCommittee OverviewGovernance Calendar (simplified)GuestsQuestions THANK YOU!Success for all... Takes us all!
Partner with us to retain Culver City’s destination district distinctionand families will continue to choose Culver City because of our successful independent school systemPlease consider convening a future special joint sessionwith both bodies (the entire council and school board) to discuss this important item together - as is the practice in many independent municipalities
8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 www.rylandsbc.com
To: Lisa Soghor, Chief Financial Officer
Elizabeth Shavelson, Assistant Chief Financial Officer
From: Cathy Dominico
Date: April 14, 2025
Re: School District Funding and Co unty Office of Education Oversight
Lisa and Liz,
As we discussed, I have prepar ed this memorandum to provide you with an overview of county office of education oversight for California school districts and mechanisms available to schools to augment funding when budgetary shortfalls are identified.
AB 1200
School districts in California are required to file two reports during a fiscal year (interim reports) on the status of the district’s financial health. The first interim report is due December 15 for the period ending October 31. The second interim report is due March 17 for the period ending January 31.
The interim reports must include a certification of whether or not the school district is able to meet its financial obligations. The certifications are classified as “positive”, “qualified”, or “negative”.
A “positive” certification is assigned when th e district will meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years.
A “qualified” certification is assigned when the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years. A “negative” certification is assigned when a district will be unable to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the current year or for the subsequent fiscal year.
The number of districts deemed “qualified” or “n egative” each year is dependent on economic conditions. For example, as one time money from COVID has been eliminated, a higher number of school districts are certifying as “qualified” . Although a majority of school districts have positive certification, it is not uncommon to see multiple districts with qualified status in each City of Culver City
School District Funding and County Office of Education Oversight
2 | Page
8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] county, especially in challengin g economic times. It is more uncommon to see districts with a negative certification.
AB 1200 was created in 1991 to ensure that local educational agencies throughout California are adequately prepared to meet their financial obligations. This concer n arose following the bankruptcy of the Richmond School District and th e fiscal collapse of a few other districts that were preparing to request emergency loans from the state. AB 1200 improved fiscal procedures, standards, and accountability at the local leve l and expanded the role of county offices of education (COEs) in monitoring school districts by mandating that COEs intervene under certain circumstances to ensure districts can meet th eir financial obligations. Under AB 1200, COEs conduct reviews, examinations, and audits of districts, and providing written notifications of the results, at least annually, on the fiscal solvency of the districts with disapproved budgets, qualified, or negative certifications, or districts facing fiscal uncertainty.
School districts must submit regular financial re ports to their respective COEs, including interim reports and annual audits. If a school district is identified as having financial difficulties, AB 1200 outlines intervention procedures. The county su perintendent has the authority to disapprove a school district’s budget, or authority to declare a district in jeopardy of being unable to meet its financial obligations through a “qualified” or “negative” certification at interim financial reporting periods or at any time during the year. Such ac tion results in various authorized forms of intervention on the part of the county office including assigning external consultants, requiring a district fiscal recovery plan, or even disallowing certain district expenditures.
AB 1200 also led to the creation of FCMAT, a st ate entity that provides fiscal oversight and assistance to COEs and school districts facing financial challenges. FCMAT offers support in areas such as budget development, financial reporting, and crisis management and are often assigned as a fiscal advisor to school districts financial crisis or distress.
Essentially, when a district has a qualified or negative certificatio n, the COE intervenes to help the district balance their budget and avoid a larger financial problem. Assigning a fiscal advisor or developing a fiscal recover plan can be a solid tool for school districts to balance their budget, especially when finding difficulty identifying budget cuts internally.
When School Districts Are Unable to Balance Their Budgets
The terms fiscal crisis and fiscal distress tend to be used interchangeably. But for clarity, fiscal distress is less serious and precedes fiscal crisis. Districts experiencing fiscal distress have many options for turnaround. More frequently fiscal distress is the result of short-term budget difficulties and can be resolved by aggressive budget balancing actions.
City of Culver City
School District Funding and County Office of Education Oversight
3 | Page
8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected] Fiscal crisis is more severe, usually the result of prolonged imbalances between resources and spending, or unanticipated events, leading to cash flow shortages and the exhaustion of options to mitigate those shortages (e.g., temporary cash borrowing options).
In extreme situations, a school wi ll enter into receivership. This oc curs when a school district is facing bankruptcy and has to petition the stat e for an emergency loan in order to continue operations. In this situation, the school district is assigned an administrator, or trustee to oversee all operations and the governing board loses its power. The admini strator makes cuts to staff, programs, and services to bring the budget back to positive status.
Districts with financial difficulty follow a progre ssion from stability to distress to crisis. Most districts stop at mild to moderate distress and ta ke the necessary action to turn around, others progress to distress and crisis and require more intense intervention. Since 1991, only nine school districts have progressed from crisis to receivership.
Budget Status of Culver City USD
Culver City Unified School District has a “qualif ied” certification of their Second Interim Report due to the fact that they are projecting thei r ending fund balance to fall below the required minimum 3%. They are not projecting a negative fund balance. When looking at their multi-year budget projection, the District is projecting to continue to no t meet the minimum 3% reserve requirement, however, they are projecting an in creasing fund balance pe rcentage showing an improving fiscal situation.
With a qualified status, it is likely that the COE will recommend a fiscal recovery plan that identifies sufficient budget cuts to bring the ending fund bala nce back up to the minimum 3% reserve requirement. If the fiscal recovery plan is not sufficient, the COE will likely assign a fiscal advisor to assist the District in identifying the improvements to the budget to achieve a 3% minimum reserve. Although the County Superinte ndent does have “stay” and “rescind” power for districts in financial distress, this power is typically used when a county superintendent believe the board’s action might jeopardize the sc hool district’s financial stability. They do not typically intervene unless it is an extreme situat ion. It is not until a sc hool district takes an emergency state loan that the school board would lose control of district operations.
Options to Augment School District Funding
School district operations are generally funded by a combination of local property taxes, including ERAF funds, and state aid. On average, school districts receive approximately 35% of the property taxes generated within a jurisdiction plus state aid in an amount up to their calculated Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) entitlement amount. To augment operational revenues, school districts can seek voter approval for parcel ta x revenues. They can also lease out property and use lease revenues for ongoing operations.
City of Culver City
School District Funding and County Office of Education Oversight
4 | Page
8334 Parus Way, Granite Bay, California 95746
Office (916) 652-7165 Fax (916) 652-7168 [email protected]
Although the City of Santa Monica is quite generous in providing a share of sales tax and property transfer taxes as well as significant joint use funding to their local school district, this contribution from a city is quite unique. Approximately 20%-25% of the District’s unrestricted funding comes from the City of Santa Monica. I am not aware of another district in California that receives significant unrestricted funding from their local city. Some cities will provide funding for specific projects of interest, for example an arts or athl etic program. In Marin County, there are cities that provide limited funding for arts and music programs. This funding amounts to several hundred thousand per year. The City of Culver City provides funding more in line with other cities in California, contributing approximately $500,000 per year for crossing guards.
Generally speaking, a school district has its own independently elected governing board that sets policy separate from that of the city. School district boundaries al so do not typically align with city boundaries. As such, school districts typically obtain augmented funding independently from their own taxpayers.
Summary
The COE oversight for school districts is designed to prevent significant financial crisis by creating a mechanism for intervention when facing budget challenges. The initial intervention phase can benefit districts by providing an outside reco mmendation for budget cuts or other budgetary recommendations. Although Culver City Unifie d School District is facing some financial challenges, their financial picture is projected to improve and, with support from their COE, will likely achieve budgetary stability.
Further, it is uncommon for cities to provide substantial unrestricted operating funds to their local school districts. It is the expectation that each governing body will make local decisions on how to raise funds from their own constituents.
Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total Revenues ABC
Unrestricted 160,305,571 17,495,711 61,965,669 239,766,952 0 6,820,048 9,845,284 256,432,283 Restricted 0 0 0 0 29,216,271 52,404,671 8,064,994 89,685,936 Total 160,305,571 17,495,711 61,965,669 239,766,952 29,216,271 59,224,719 17,910,277 346,118,219 Percent 66.86% 7.30% 25.84% 69.27% 8.44% 17.11% 5.17% 100.00% Acton-Agua Dulce(2)
Unrestricted 11,233,303 608,323 1,596,446 13,438,072 0 240,358 3,822,815 17,501,245 Restricted 0 0 0 0 1,532,552 1,933,983 1,202,804 4,669,339 Total 11,233,303 608,323 1,596,446 13,438,072 1,532,552 2,174,341 5,025,619 22,170,585 Percent 83.59% 4.53% 11.88% 60.61% 6.91% 9.81% 22.67% 100.00% Alhambra
Unrestricted 127,069,037 12,755,689 61,067,660 200,892,386 0 6,363,446 6,463,413 213,719,245 Restricted 0 0 0 0 35,290,733 35,485,194 23,424,679 94,200,606 Total 127,069,037 12,755,689 61,067,660 200,892,386 35,290,733 41,848,640 29,888,092 307,919,851 Percent 63.25% 6.35% 30.40% 65.24% 11.46% 13.59% 9.71% 100.00% Arcadia
Unrestricted 43,436,461 6,215,586 55,683,265 105,335,313 0 3,128,261 3,659,148 112,122,721 Restricted 0 0 0 0 4,850,081 13,177,959 23,248,821 41,276,861 Total 43,436,461 6,215,586 55,683,265 105,335,313 4,850,081 16,306,220 26,907,969 153,399,583 Percent 41.24% 5.90% 52.86% 68.67% 3.16% 10.63% 17.54% 100.00% Azusa
Unrestricted 71,282,913 6,122,997 28,135,012 105,540,923 0 1,637,498 2,147,461 109,325,881 Restricted 0 0 0 0 23,127,239 17,773,868 8,594,803 49,495,911 Total 71,282,913 6,122,997 28,135,012 105,540,923 23,127,239 19,411,366 10,742,264 158,821,792 Percent 67.54% 5.80% 26.66% 66.45% 14.56% 12.22% 6.76% 100.00% Baldwin Park(2)
Unrestricted 130,835,234 10,437,362 26,685,722 167,958,318 0 4,920,381 9,089,062 181,967,761 Restricted 0 0 0 0 30,789,361 31,931,312 14,230,158 76,950,832 Total 130,835,234 10,437,362 26,685,722 167,958,318 30,789,361 36,851,693 23,319,220 258,918,592 Percent 77.90% 6.21% 15.89% 64.87% 11.89% 14.23% 9.01% 100.00% Bassett
Unrestricted 31,379,098 2,622,903 11,698,069 45,700,070 0 793,281 2,002,347 48,495,699 Restricted 0 0 0 0 12,474,141 11,431,406 2,965,615 26,871,162 Total 31,379,098 2,622,903 11,698,069 45,700,070 12,474,141 12,224,688 4,967,962 75,366,861 Percent 68.66% 5.74% 25.60% 60.64% 16.55% 16.22% 6.59% 100.00% District
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
76 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Bellflower
Unrestricted 105,675,994 9,505,328 34,409,609 149,590,931 1,999 3,990,473 6,089,649 159,673,052 Restricted 0 0 643,183 643,183 21,650,242 36,145,555 2,765,393 61,204,374 Total 105,675,994 9,505,328 35,052,792 150,234,114 21,652,242 40,136,028 8,855,042 220,877,426 Percent 70.34% 6.33% 23.33% 68.02% 9.80% 18.17% 4.01% 100.00% Beverly Hills
Unrestricted 1,338,649 0 68,774,184 70,112,833 0 819,876 15,558,071 86,490,780 Restricted 0 0 0 0 2,307,332 5,402,588 3,602,409 11,312,329 Total 1,338,649 0 68,774,184 70,112,833 2,307,332 6,222,464 19,160,480 97,803,108 Percent 1.91% 0.00% 98.09% 71.69% 2.36% 6.36% 19.59% 100.00% Bonita
Unrestricted 70,621,738 8,653,110 34,956,548 114,231,396 4,654 9,043,528 4,731,863 128,011,440 Restricted 0 0 0 0 7,478,438 7,915,363 13,153,681 28,547,482 Total 70,621,738 8,653,110 34,956,548 114,231,396 7,483,092 16,958,891 17,885,543 156,558,922 Percent 61.82% 7.58% 30.60% 72.96% 4.78% 10.83% 11.42% 100.00% Burbank
Unrestricted 74,544,396 11,293,636 83,613,729 169,451,761 0 6,764,260 4,024,242 180,240,263 Restricted 0 0 0 0 9,214,462 27,217,267 5,065,406 41,497,135 Total 74,544,396 11,293,636 83,613,729 169,451,761 9,214,462 33,981,528 9,089,648 221,737,398 Percent 43.99% 6.66% 49.34% 76.42% 4.16% 15.33% 4.10% 100.00% Charter Oak
Unrestricted 37,977,922 3,787,663 16,835,278 58,600,863 0 1,394,759 2,488,195 62,483,816 Restricted 0 0 0 0 3,081,129 12,069,182 6,804,588 21,954,899 Total 37,977,922 3,787,663 16,835,278 58,600,863 3,081,129 13,463,941 9,292,784 84,438,716 Percent 64.81% 6.46% 28.73% 69.40% 3.65% 15.95% 11.01% 100.00% Claremont
Unrestricted 46,363,683 5,810,008 24,554,481 76,728,173 10,858 2,314,957 2,579,426 81,633,414 Restricted 0 0 0 0 5,913,735 1,680,370 0 7,594,105
Total 46,363,683 5,810,008 24,554,481 76,728,173 5,924,593 3,995,327 2,579,426 89,227,519 Percent 60.43% 7.57% 32.00% 85.99% 6.64% 4.48% 2.89% 100.00% Compton(2)
Unrestricted 215,598,730 16,621,646 53,826,820 286,047,196 0 4,376,663 19,481,034 309,904,893 Restricted 0 0 0 0 92,112,854 73,946,856 11,577,599 177,637,308 Total 215,598,730 16,621,646 53,826,820 286,047,196 92,112,854 78,323,519 31,058,633 487,542,201 Percent 75.37% 5.81% 18.82% 58.67% 18.89% 16.06% 6.37% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
77 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Covina-Valley
Unrestricted 101,480,888 13,558,784 39,237,458 154,277,129 0 3,899,612 4,787,857 162,964,599 Restricted 0 0 0 0 25,226,747 39,976,574 7,801,310 73,004,631 Total 101,480,888 13,558,784 39,237,458 154,277,129 25,226,747 43,876,186 12,589,167 235,969,230 Percent 65.78% 8.79% 25.43% 65.38% 10.69% 18.59% 5.34% 100.00% Culver City
Unrestricted 32,949,349 5,209,392 42,287,040 80,445,781 0 2,137,191 9,432,547 92,015,519 Restricted 0 0 0 0 4,464,123 18,966,326 422,455 23,852,903 Total 32,949,349 5,209,392 42,287,040 80,445,781 4,464,123 21,103,516 9,855,003 115,868,423 Percent 40.96% 6.48% 52.57% 69.43% 3.85% 18.21% 8.51% 100.00% Downey
Unrestricted 213,525,266 20,238,833 65,908,638 299,672,737 0 5,846,132 7,263,652 312,782,520 Restricted 0 0 0 0 42,819,327 71,564,192 17,621,936 132,005,455 Total 213,525,266 20,238,833 65,908,638 299,672,737 42,819,327 77,410,323 24,885,588 444,787,975 Percent 71.25% 6.75% 21.99% 67.37% 9.63% 17.40% 5.59% 100.00% Duarte(2)
Unrestricted 29,351,167 2,541,003 7,450,686 39,342,856 0 1,513,238 2,926,157 43,782,251 Restricted 0 0 0 0 7,969,796 5,309,992 7,618,869 20,898,657 Total 29,351,167 2,541,003 7,450,686 39,342,856 7,969,796 6,823,230 10,545,026 64,680,908 Percent 74.60% 6.46% 18.94% 60.83% 12.32% 10.55% 16.30% 100.00% El Rancho
Unrestricted 79,685,310 7,030,250 23,051,887 109,767,446 460,815 2,299,572 4,734,676 117,262,509 Restricted 0 0 0 0 14,779,948 11,659,430 5,241,670 31,681,048 Total 79,685,310 7,030,250 23,051,887 109,767,446 15,240,763 13,959,002 9,976,346 148,943,557 Percent 72.59% 6.40% 21.00% 73.70% 10.23% 9.37% 6.70% 100.00% El Segundo
Unrestricted 20,777,668 2,977,890 15,319,403 39,074,961 0 929,421 5,041,079 45,045,460 Restricted 0 0 0 0 1,308,609 6,214,703 3,205,112 10,728,424 Total 20,777,668 2,977,890 15,319,403 39,074,961 1,308,609 7,144,125 8,246,190 55,773,884 Percent 53.17% 7.62% 39.21% 70.06% 2.35% 12.81% 14.79% 100.00% Glendale
Unrestricted 148,046,247 20,397,660 125,629,356 294,073,263 31,329 10,360,179 11,947,503 316,412,275 Restricted 0 0 0 0 26,515,364 67,114,671 10,927,420 104,557,456 Total 148,046,247 20,397,660 125,629,356 294,073,263 26,546,693 77,474,851 22,874,923 420,969,731 Percent 50.34% 6.94% 42.72% 69.86% 6.31% 18.40% 5.43% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
78 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Glendora
Unrestricted 36,671,575 6,002,402 36,907,168 79,581,145 0 2,247,379 3,408,575 85,237,099 Restricted 0 0 0 0 6,059,496 7,698,310 7,857,251 21,615,057 Total 36,671,575 6,002,402 36,907,168 79,581,145 6,059,496 9,945,690 11,265,826 106,852,157 Percent 46.08% 7.54% 46.38% 74.48% 5.67% 9.31% 10.54% 100.00% Hacienda La Puente
Unrestricted 161,616,570 14,996,786 47,689,029 224,302,385 0 4,262,816 10,701,116 239,266,317 Restricted 0 0 0 0 22,773,797 61,564,091 3,973,285 88,311,172 Total 161,616,570 14,996,786 47,689,029 224,302,385 22,773,797 65,826,907 14,674,400 327,577,489 Percent 72.05% 6.69% 21.26% 68.47% 6.95% 20.10% 4.48% 100.00% Inglewood(2)
Unrestricted 65,784,642 4,671,332 43,569,155 114,025,128 0 1,766,463 11,909,318 127,700,909 Restricted 0 0 0 0 34,707,645 29,135,327 7,915,354 71,758,326 Total 65,784,642 4,671,332 43,569,155 114,025,128 34,707,645 30,901,790 19,824,672 199,459,235 Percent 57.69% 4.10% 38.21% 57.17% 17.40% 15.49% 9.94% 100.00% La Canada
Unrestricted 16,188,963 2,827,548 24,827,812 43,844,323 6,205 1,101,973 11,493,314 56,445,814 Restricted 0 0 0 0 1,178,549 7,513,993 57,156 8,749,698 Total 16,188,963 2,827,548 24,827,812 43,844,323 1,184,754 8,615,965 11,550,470 65,195,512 Percent 36.92% 6.45% 56.63% 67.25% 1.82% 13.22% 17.72% 100.00% Las Virgenes
Unrestricted 45,173,937 8,030,668 62,686,967 115,891,572 0 3,250,075 12,935,499 132,077,145 Restricted 0 0 0 0 4,579,450 20,273,798 2,021,552 26,874,799 Total 45,173,937 8,030,668 62,686,967 115,891,572 4,579,450 23,523,872 14,957,050 158,951,944 Percent 38.98% 6.93% 54.09% 72.91% 2.88% 14.80% 9.41% 100.00% Long Beach(2)
Unrestricted 553,009,913 58,416,157 251,089,958 862,516,027 0 21,088,187 33,788,315 917,392,528 Restricted 0 0 0 0 207,719,937 195,828,775 16,744,160 420,292,871 Total 553,009,913 58,416,157 251,089,958 862,516,027 207,719,937 216,916,962 50,532,474 1,337,685,400 Percent 64.12% 6.77% 29.11% 64.48% 15.53% 16.22% 3.78% 100.00% Los Angeles(2)
Unrestricted 4,335,083,090 288,669,186 2,078,981,571 6,702,733,847 488,389,587 143,777,103 457,260,360 7,792,160,898 Restricted 0 0 32,742,901 32,742,901 1,618,181,526 1,634,577,164 124,851,913 3,410,353,504 Total 4,335,083,090 288,669,186 2,111,724,472 6,735,476,748 2,106,571,113 1,778,354,267 582,112,274 11,202,514,402 Percent 64.36% 4.29% 31.35% 60.12% 18.80% 15.87% 5.20% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
79 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Lynwood
Unrestricted 151,024,604 11,577,232 27,048,062 189,649,899 0 3,608,540 27,527,718 220,786,157 Restricted 0 0 0 0 33,746,567 50,387,126 (3,076,922) 81,056,771 Total 151,024,604 11,577,232 27,048,062 189,649,899 33,746,567 53,995,666 24,450,795 301,842,927 Percent 79.63% 6.10% 14.26% 62.83% 11.18% 17.89% 8.10% 100.00% Manhattan Beach
Unrestricted 9,312,223 3,077,176 54,823,682 67,213,080 0 1,746,756 7,663,971 76,623,806 Restricted 0 0 0 0 2,648,751 10,661,274 10,921,385 24,231,410 Total 9,312,223 3,077,176 54,823,682 67,213,080 2,648,751 12,408,030 18,585,355 100,855,216 Percent 13.85% 4.58% 81.57% 66.64% 2.63% 12.30% 18.43% 100.00% Monrovia
Unrestricted 35,780,353 4,253,996 23,139,272 63,173,621 0 1,747,416 2,309,125 67,230,163 Restricted 0 0 0 0 5,112,410 8,198,437 8,204,895 21,515,742 Total 35,780,353 4,253,996 23,139,272 63,173,621 5,112,410 9,945,853 10,514,020 88,745,905 Percent 56.64% 6.73% 36.63% 71.18% 5.76% 11.21% 11.85% 100.00% Montebello
Unrestricted 211,465,418 19,207,956 81,260,823 311,934,198 9,875,000 8,622,558 26,005,606 356,437,362 Restricted 0 0 0 0 49,394,150 55,698,390 28,886,227 133,978,767 Total 211,465,418 19,207,956 81,260,823 311,934,198 59,269,150 64,320,948 54,891,834 490,416,130 Percent 67.79% 6.16% 26.05% 63.61% 12.09% 13.12% 11.19% 100.00% Norwalk-La Mirada
Unrestricted 141,638,390 14,189,030 54,599,830 210,427,250 0 7,074,927 6,755,016 224,257,192 Restricted 0 0 0 0 27,692,253 49,342,937 4,929,592 81,964,783 Total 141,638,390 14,189,030 54,599,830 210,427,250 27,692,253 56,417,864 11,684,608 306,221,975 Percent 67.31% 6.74% 25.95% 68.72% 9.04% 18.42% 3.82% 100.00% Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unrestricted 45,649,242 7,114,062 65,579,125 118,342,429 377,928 3,181,066 25,952,850 147,854,273 Restricted 0 0 0 0 5,282,707 20,829,465 384,019 26,496,191 Total 45,649,242 7,114,062 65,579,125 118,342,429 5,660,635 24,010,531 26,336,870 174,350,464 Percent 38.57% 6.01% 55.41% 67.88% 3.25% 13.77% 15.11% 100.00% Paramount
Unrestricted 159,320,232 12,464,805 35,522,873 207,307,910 0 4,923,894 7,419,370 219,651,174 Restricted 0 0 0 0 28,439,895 38,293,471 15,546,190 82,279,556 Total 159,320,232 12,464,805 35,522,873 207,307,910 28,439,895 43,217,365 22,965,560 301,930,730 Percent 76.85% 6.01% 17.14% 68.66% 9.42% 14.31% 7.61% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
80 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
Pasadena(2)
Unrestricted 87,448,015 8,408,699 103,834,396 199,691,109 48,086 4,706,916 21,912,559 226,358,671 Restricted 0 0 0 0 48,760,091 52,533,694 7,263,077 108,556,862 Total 87,448,015 8,408,699 103,834,396 199,691,109 48,808,177 57,240,611 29,175,636 334,915,533 Percent 43.79% 4.21% 52.00% 59.62% 14.57% 17.09% 8.71% 100.00% Pomona(2)
Unrestricted 236,986,469 19,101,208 56,616,071 312,703,748 0 4,909,689 17,209,910 334,823,346 Restricted 0 0 0 0 72,382,715 59,592,357 12,825,688 144,800,761 Total 236,986,469 19,101,208 56,616,071 312,703,748 72,382,715 64,502,046 30,035,598 479,624,107 Percent 75.79% 6.11% 18.11% 65.20% 15.09% 13.45% 6.26% 100.00% Redondo Beach
Unrestricted 38,854,692 6,775,514 64,092,520 109,722,727 90,207 3,281,963 3,222,318 116,317,214 Restricted 0 0 0 0 6,170,736 13,564,518 4,255,214 23,990,468 Total 38,854,692 6,775,514 64,092,520 109,722,727 6,260,943 16,846,481 7,477,532 140,307,682 Percent 35.41% 6.18% 58.41% 78.20% 4.46% 12.01% 5.33% 100.00% Rowland(2)
Unrestricted 125,711,502 10,291,079 41,930,675 177,933,256 0 4,036,271 6,227,156 188,196,684 Restricted 0 0 0 0 24,467,952 43,917,385 4,924,835 73,310,172 Total 125,711,502 10,291,079 41,930,675 177,933,256 24,467,952 47,953,656 11,151,992 261,506,856 Percent 70.65% 5.78% 23.57% 68.04% 9.36% 18.34% 4.26% 100.00% San Gabriel(2)
Unrestricted 39,914,012 3,983,652 19,365,277 63,262,941 0 2,134,129 1,354,532 66,751,602 Restricted 0 0 0 0 6,721,034 9,166,884 7,588,187 23,476,106 Total 39,914,012 3,983,652 19,365,277 63,262,941 6,721,034 11,301,014 8,942,719 90,227,708 Percent 63.09% 6.30% 30.61% 70.11% 7.45% 12.52% 9.91% 100.00% San Marino
Unrestricted 12,592,742 2,029,666 18,389,044 33,011,452 0 865,034 9,404,120 43,280,606 Restricted 0 0 0 0 1,367,347 2,280,238 7,276,241 10,923,826 Total 12,592,742 2,029,666 18,389,044 33,011,452 1,367,347 3,145,273 16,680,360 54,204,432 Percent 38.15% 6.15% 55.71% 60.90% 2.52% 5.80% 30.77% 100.00% Santa Monica-Malibu
Unrestricted 8,585,849 0 118,910,150 127,495,999 0 2,565,172 62,693,793 192,754,964 Restricted 0 0 0 0 5,465,309 2,757,892 14,359,882 22,583,083 Total 8,585,849 0 118,910,150 127,495,999 5,465,309 5,323,064 77,053,675 215,338,048 Percent 6.73% 0.00% 93.27% 59.21% 2.54% 2.47% 35.78% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
81 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
South Pasadena
Unrestricted 32,318,778 4,177,066 17,158,855 53,654,699 0 1,674,131 3,720,170 59,049,000 Restricted 0 0 0 0 2,846,279 5,700,082 6,380,476 14,926,837 Total 32,318,778 4,177,066 17,158,855 53,654,699 2,846,279 7,374,212 10,100,646 73,975,837 Percent 60.23% 7.79% 31.98% 72.53% 3.85% 9.97% 13.65% 100.00% Temple City
Unrestricted 39,742,770 4,772,503 20,115,959 64,631,232 0 1,574,412 880,856 67,086,500 Restricted 0 0 0 0 4,271,929 11,359,526 7,791,950 23,423,406 Total 39,742,770 4,772,503 20,115,959 64,631,232 4,271,929 12,933,938 8,672,806 90,509,905 Percent 61.49% 7.38% 31.12% 71.41% 4.72% 14.29% 9.58% 100.00% Torrance
Unrestricted 130,991,898 17,980,801 110,544,179 259,516,878 118,234 8,177,469 12,363,047 280,175,627 Restricted 0 0 0 0 12,881,500 39,648,825 8,071,868 60,602,194 Total 130,991,898 17,980,801 110,544,179 259,516,878 12,999,734 47,826,294 20,434,915 340,777,821 Percent 50.48% 6.93% 42.60% 76.15% 3.81% 14.03% 6.00% 100.00% Walnut Valley
Unrestricted 98,449,221 12,339,793 50,378,855 161,167,869 0 4,546,812 5,839,028 171,553,709 Restricted 0 0 0 0 7,164,694 17,248,794 19,777,346 44,190,833 Total 98,449,221 12,339,793 50,378,855 161,167,869 7,164,694 21,795,606 25,616,374 215,744,543 Percent 61.08% 7.66% 31.26% 74.70% 3.32% 10.10% 11.87% 100.00% West Covina(2)
Unrestricted 84,895,043 7,444,865 19,376,297 111,716,205 81,360 3,346,932 9,255,485 124,399,983 Restricted 0 0 0 0 7,658,129 17,157,396 12,487,001 37,302,526 Total 84,895,043 7,444,865 19,376,297 111,716,205 7,739,489 20,504,328 21,742,487 161,702,509 Percent 75.99% 6.66% 17.34% 69.09% 4.79% 12.68% 13.45% 100.00% Wiseburn(2)
Unrestricted 12,663,355 1,490,424 13,613,571 27,767,350 0 628,006 3,730,408 32,125,764 Restricted 0 0 0 0 1,328,528 6,230,087 1,663,390 9,222,006 Total 12,663,355 1,490,424 13,613,571 27,767,350 1,328,528 6,858,093 5,393,799 41,347,770 Percent 45.61% 5.37% 49.03% 67.16% 3.21% 16.59% 13.04% 100.00% Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
82 Table 6
General Fund Income Data - 2023-24
Unified School Districts
Total Other Other
State Aid ERAF(1) Other LCFF Sources Federal Revenue State Revenue Local Revenue Total RevenuesDistrict Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Sources
Property Taxes
TOTAL UNIFIED
Unrestricted 8,670,352,122 738,177,380 4,424,738,136 13,833,267,639 499,496,262 330,439,223 941,059,016 15,604,262,133 Restricted 0 0 33,386,084 33,386,084 2,651,125,860 3,020,481,698 521,420,934 6,226,414,580 Total 8,670,352,122 738,177,380 4,458,124,220 13,866,653,723 3,150,622,122 3,350,920,921 1,462,479,950 21,830,676,713 Percent 62.53% 5.32% 32.15% 63.52% 14.43% 15.35% 6.70% 100.00%
TOTAL EXCLUDING
L.A. UNIFIED
Unrestricted 4,335,269,032 449,508,194 2,345,756,565 7,130,533,792 11,106,675 186,662,120 483,798,656 7,812,101,235 Restricted 0 0 643,183 643,183 1,032,944,334 1,385,904,534 396,569,021 2,816,061,076 Total 4,335,269,032 449,508,194 2,346,399,748 7,131,176,975 1,044,051,009 1,572,566,654 880,367,677 10,628,162,311 Percent 60.79% 6.30% 32.90% 67.10% 9.82% 14.80% 8.28% 100.00% (1) ERAF: Education Revenue Augmentation Fund.
(2) These districts may have charter school data included in their General Fund, although charter school ADA is excluded from the districts' LCFF revenue calculation ADA.
Source: SACS Web System
2023-24 Unaudited Actuals
83