Finance committee reviews FY26-27 draft budget, says $232M ask would only maintain status quo amid an $18.9M shortfall
Summary
Budget chief presented a draft FY26-27 general fund request and described an $18.9 million starting deficit; board members debated asking the state for an ‘ideal’ amount versus a smaller, attainable increase and pressed for line-item detail on substitutes and contracted custodial services.
Mister Hernandez, the district’s budget lead, presented the draft FY26-27 general fund budget to the Finance & Operations Committee and emphasized the figures are preliminary and subject to change. “I wanna emphasize on the word draft,” he said, adding the district is still holding community forums and negotiating with bargaining units.
The presentation traced a 10-year pattern of requests and approvals and highlighted widening gaps between what the district requests and what it receives. Hernandez summarized recent years: the district requested about $207 million for FY24 and received roughly $203 million; for FY25 it requested roughly $220 million and received $208 million; this year the district requested $231 million and is asking for $232 million to maintain current services. Hernandez said that without using identified special funds, the district would need about $252 million to add programs and restore cut services. He described the structural deficit the district faces: “we have almost an $18,900,000 deficit to start the budget conversation.”
The draft assumes using approximately $20 million of special (non-general) funds to reduce the general-fund ask to $232 million; Hernandez said that level would allow the district to “maintain status quo” but would require continuing the mitigation strategies implemented this year.
Board members pressed for strategy and specificity. Doctor Yarbrough said the board must balance asking for an “ideal” funding level against the political reality of what the district can expect to receive and urged continued state advocacy. “We want an ideal school system,” Yarbrough said, but added the district should “ask for what we need, and ask for what would be ideal for the students.”
Miss Downer raised detailed line-item concerns about contracting and substitute-teacher costs, questioning where vendors such as ABM are booked in the budget and why the substitute-teacher line required an additional $1 million. Hernandez responded that December projections showed a likely $1.7 million deficit on substitutes by year-end, and the proposed budget adds $1 million to the substitute line as a partial mitigation while the district pursues additional cost-reduction strategies.
Doctor Negron and other senior staff cautioned that reversing privatization alone may not close the overall gap and that the district’s long-running shortfall is driven by multiple factors including salary increases, transportation costs and a state Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula that has not been adjusted for inflation since 2013. Negron said eliminating contracted services could in some cases increase costs and would not necessarily eliminate the $18.8 million structural deficit.
Members asked for more detailed appendices showing what is included in broad categories such as “other contractual services,” and for school-level budget breakdowns and staffing guidelines. Hernandez said a fuller budget book and more detailed spreadsheets will be posted in the coming weeks and reminded members of upcoming community budget forums (Wednesday 6 p.m. at Wilbur Cross High; Thursday 9 a.m. at 2 Man School and 4:30 p.m. at Nathan Hale).
The committee did not take a formal vote on the budget; the draft and accompanying materials will go to the full board next week for further review.
