Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lawrence Alliance for Education presents draft FY26 budget, flags multimillion‑dollar gap with city over municipal charges and transportation

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Superintendent Ralph Guerrero and CFO Jason Cabrera presented a draft Fiscal Year 2026 budget and warned a $4.02 million shortfall arising from differences in municipal-related cost calculations and proposed city appropriations for transportation and leases.

The Lawrence Alliance for Education on April 9 presented a draft Fiscal Year 2026 budget that school leaders said would fund expanded programming for English‑learners and other priorities but faces a multimillion‑dollar shortfall tied to municipal charges and a reduced city transportation appropriation.

Superintendent Ralph Guerrero introduced the draft and thanked district staff and the finance team, saying the process emphasized transparency and alignment with district priorities. "We couldn't have accuracy without accountability, and we cannot have accountability without transparency," Guerrero told the board. CFO Jason Cabrera presented the budget spreadsheets and described two different revenue calculations: the district's working figure and a lower appropriation number offered by city finance staff.

Why it matters: the difference affects how much the city would provide for municipal‑related costs (for example, transportation, leases and other charges historically shared between the city and schools). Cabrera said the discrepancy left the district roughly $4,020,000 short of the spending level the schools calculated would be needed for FY26. That gap, officials said, stems from changes in how the city proposes to calculate items formerly covered under a 2013 memorandum of understanding.

Cabrera said the draft shows a foundation budget in the low‑to‑mid $330 millions and described revenue adjustments and grant assumptions. He told the board that, among other pressures, utilities and salaries drive large budget increases and that the district has been using federal ESSER funds in prior years — funding that will not be available going forward. "This is a draft. My hope is that we get a lot of input so that next time that we are here with our final budget, we can get to where we need to be," Cabrera said.

Board members pressed for detail on the municipal related costs and a 2013 memorandum of understanding. Board member Juana Matias and Doctor Dolores Gala pressed for a line‑by‑line explanation of what the city interprets as municipal charges and for follow‑up meetings with state officials. Superintendent Guerrero said the district scheduled a meeting with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education fiscal staff to review the MOU and asked board members to join that conversation.

Transportation costs were a focal point. Cabrera said the city allocated about $12.5 million for transportation this year; the city's FY26 proposal reduces that amount by roughly $1.637 million, while the district sees transportation needs rising because of enrollment growth and increased requirements for homeless and foster‑care transport under McKinney‑Vento rules. District staff described many recent placements outside Lawrence that require individual or small‑group transport, raising per‑student costs.

Enrollment growth also featured in the presentation. District leaders said October‑1 counts rose by roughly 300 students year‑over‑year and that continuing housing development in Lawrence could add several hundred students in coming years. Cabrera gave a rough per‑pupil figure used for planning: about $21,000 per regular student, with higher estimated per‑pupil costs for multilingual and special‑education placements (figures provided as planning estimates during the presentation).

Next steps: Cabrera asked the board and community to review posted budget documents, attend a subcommittee meeting set for the weeks ahead and provide feedback before the board finalizes a FY26 proposal to send to the city council. Superintendent Guerrero urged ongoing advocacy with city leaders to address the municipal appropriation differences and noted collective bargaining obligations and contract negotiations will also affect final numbers.

Ending: Board members scheduled follow‑up meetings with city and state fiscal officials; the district will return with a revised budget proposal after committee review and community input.