MNPS staff outline FY26 budget trade-offs after mayor’s proposed 13% boost; $10M state shortfall looms

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools leaders told the Board Budget and Finance Committee on a budget update that the mayor’s proposed ordinance would increase Metro’s contribution to MNPS by about 13%, but a recent change in the state TISA capacity factor is projected to reduce state funding by approximately $10 million for fiscal year 2026.

The update, delivered by Jorge Robles, chief financial officer for MNPS, and summarized by Director Dr. Battle, drew repeated questions from board members about timing and detail. Robles said the mayor’s ordinance “includes a 13% increase in revenue to support the board approved priorities,” while also warning that “that change in the physical capacity factor, is projected to have an impact of a $10,000,000 approximately reduction on the funding that we will receive from the state on FY26.”

The result, administration officials said, is a complex picture: more local investment from the mayor’s office alongside new state-level changes — including voucher-related calculations and a new method the state will use to remove funds before pass-throughs — that the district has not yet been able to fully quantify. Robles said the district has been working since the mayor’s May 1 state of the city address to combine those pieces into a single proposed budget, but that “time is short” and several formula components arrived after the committee’s last meeting.

Why it matters: the mayor’s proposed local increase is large compared with recent cycles and could allow MNPS to move some ESSER-funded initiatives into operating budgets, such as school nurses, advocacy centers and other districtwide programs. At the same time, the roughly $10 million projected reduction in state funding and other new state rules could force cuts or reshaping of existing services, administrators said.

Board members pressed for specifics about what will be presented to Metro Council at the council budget hearing on May 22 and when the board will see a formal proposed budget to review and approve. Board Member Young said the May 22 presentation concerns her: “I really struggle with that because part of when it goes to council is we want to make sure that we can advocate… I don't even know our top line number. And so it's hard for me to advocate for that if I don't know what I'm advocating for.” Director Dr. Battle and Robles replied that the May 22 appearance is intended as a presentation and question-and-answer session, not a request for council approval, and that the district’s final budget approval would come after council’s June action.

Administrators described the district priorities that will guide trade-offs: continuity of operations, moving ESSER bridge investments into the operating budget where possible, competitive employee compensation under the district’s strategic compensation work, and school safety measures. The administration said many ESSER-era programs have already moved into the operating budget; some remaining advocacy centers and restorative-practices roles at the secondary level still rely on ESSER bridge funding and must be evaluated for sustainability. Dr. Battle said the district is “trying to do our very best of capturing as many of those key investments in the final budget,” while acknowledging “these are very difficult decisions.”

Committee members asked for clearer, easily shared materials ahead of the council hearing and any special board meetings. Board Member Elrod requested the one-page summary used in prior years: “A one-pager like we've had in the past?” Robles and Dr. Battle said the district will provide a concise summary and a proposed budget draft as soon as they can, but that some elements remain unknown because of recent state changes.

Several quantitative details were reiterated in committee discussion: the TISA capacity factor moved from 18.21% to 18.67%, an adjustment administrators estimate will reduce state aid by roughly $10 million; the mayor’s proposed package was described by staff in the meeting as roughly $135–138 million in additional Metro investment for MNPS (administration gave slightly different rounded figures in discussion); and the district estimated that fully moving a set of programs from ESSER to operating (including additional advocacy centers and restorative practices at secondary schools) would require between $66 million and $76 million.

On compensation, staff said Metro’s ordinance includes components that would raise non‑MNPS Metro employee pay through a new pay plan and a one percent across‑the‑board (COLA) equivalent; MNPS has historically aligned its compensation work with Metro in several years but is not legally required to match it. Robles said the district is “trying to make a lot of things work” given competing priorities and uncertainties.

No formal motion or vote was taken in the committee meeting. Administration said it will return to the board with a proposed budget for approval after Metro Council finalizes its budget in June. The district also said it will coordinate with Board Chair Dr. Nava McKinney and budget and finance leadership on whether a special-called board meeting is needed to review a draft before May 22 or to prepare advocacy for council members.

What’s next: MNPS staff plan to appear at the Metro Council’s budget committee hearing on May 22 for questions and to present the district’s position; Metro Council is expected to adopt a final Metro budget later in June, after which MNPS will present a final proposed FY26 budget to its board for approval. Administrators asked board members for flexibility on timing because many calendar constraints — graduations and late-arriving state funding details — have compressed the schedule.