Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
School Budget Review Committee finds Cedar Rapids requested at‑risk spending without an adopted plan; approves $9 million negative MSA
Loading...
Summary
The SBRC review found Cedar Rapids requested at‑risk dropout spending authority in multiple years without a board‑adopted program plan; the committee approved a $9 million negative modified supplemental amount (MSA) for FY26 and FY27 equal to the erroneously requested sums and took other MSA and hazard abatement actions.
The School Budget Review Committee (SBRC) summary presented to the State Board recounted action taken at the March 10 SBRC hearing, including an in‑depth review of a complaint that led staff to conclude the Cedar Rapids Community School District requested modified supplemental amounts (MSA) for at‑risk dropout programs in prior years without an adopted board program plan.
Department staff said reviewers requested program plans for the years under review and the district could not produce plans adopted by its board for the relevant years. Because the statute requires a board‑adopted program plan as a precondition to requesting MSA for at‑risk programs, the SBRC determined the prior MSA requests lacked authority and therefore the committee could not have approved them. The committee voted to record a $9,000,000 negative spending authority amount for FY26 and again for FY27 — an amount equal to the previously granted but unauthorized MSA requests — and the department said litigation has been filed and is pending.
The SBRC also considered and approved other actions: several authorized MSA requests for FY27 (including one district eligible because of high open‑enrollment proportions), a hazard abatement MSA for Kingsley‑Pearson related to discovered asbestos remediation, and a small number of permanent fund transfers (for instance, to close a daycare fund with a deficit) with conditions and required auditor reporting.
Department staff emphasized that complaints are triaged by specificity and that the Cedar Rapids submission contained details that warranted full review; the department is coordinating with the Attorney General’s office because litigation has been filed by the district.
