Las Cruces Public Schools outlines $614.3M proposed budget; Title I to prioritize highest-need campuses

Deputy Superintendent Chengy Alex Liu and Budget Director Matthew Saenz on Wednesday presented a proposed $614,300,000 budget for Las Cruces Public Schools and described a year‑round, bottom‑up process intended to make the district’s budget more responsive to community priorities.

"My name is Chengy Alex Liu. I'm the deputy superintendent for Las Cruces Public Schools," Liu said as he opened the session, which the district said was the first time it had formally invited its student advisory council to the budget briefing. Matthew Saenz told students the district will publish the budget book and provides an online finance dashboard that allows residents to drill down to school‑level spending.

Saenz said the total district budget is divided among five buckets: a general fund of about $365 million for day‑to‑day operations; special revenues of about $78.7 million (restricted grants and federal or state funds); a capital bucket of about $126.4 million for construction and major repairs; debt service of about $44 million; and agency funds at about $190,000. The proposed operational budget totals about $354.9 million, and Saenz said the district is maintaining roughly 77% of operations in classroom‑facing expenditures.

Why it matters: The district said the approach preserves classroom resources while also funding large facility needs and safety improvements. Saenz listed current and planned investments in weapons‑detection systems, districtwide cameras, HVAC and reroofing projects, and named Mayfield as a capital replacement priority.

Key program and goal allocations: Liu and Saenz aligned spending with six board strategic goals. Notable line items mentioned included $67 million for literacy initiatives, $74 million for math (including $7.6 million for a math textbook adoption), approximately $44.1 million for mental‑health and ancillary services, and about $139.1 million tied to safety, custodial and capital priorities. The district cited instructional resources of roughly $11 million, health services at about $7 million, and a wellness allocation (counseling, social‑emotional supports and staff wellness) in the tens of millions.

Title I reallocation and impact on staffing: When asked whether Title I funding had decreased and how allocations would change, Superintendent Ruiz described a deliberate redistribution to concentrate federal Title I supplemental dollars on campuses with the highest need. "When you think about Title 1, the purpose of Title 1 is to ensure that... we are targeting 75% or those schools that have 75 [percent] poverty rate," he said, adding that the district will begin prioritizing campuses at the 75% threshold for the 2027–28 school year and will phase in transitions in 2026–27 so campuses have time to adjust.

District leaders acknowledged that changing Title I distribution can reduce funds at some campuses and pressed on the potential loss of positions — for example, at Organ Mountain High School, a teacher in attendance and parent raised concerns that cuts could affect social work and counseling capacity. Ruiz and Liu said the district is pursuing grant partnerships and other strategies to fill gaps and plans to reexamine staffing allocations through an "equity lens." Liu noted the district is also seeking to reduce central office spending by more than $500,000 to protect student‑facing resources.

Student privacy and instructional vendors: A student raised a lawsuit allegation involving i‑Ready and claims it sold student information. Ruiz said the district contacted i‑Ready, that the complaint involved a small number of parents out of state, and that the vendor has provided documentation and safeguards denying that student data is sold. "With us, that's very tight," Ruiz said, adding the district regulates vendor access to student information.

Funding sources and transparency: Officials described multiple revenue streams for similar purposes: personnel costs for security typically come from operational payroll funds or state unit‑value allocations, while capital improvements come from locally approved bonds, mill levies or targeted grants. Liu pointed attendees to the LCPS finance website and the budget book for school‑level detail and said budget adjustments (BARS) can be filed monthly after adoption to reallocate funds with board approval.

What remains unresolved: Participants pressed for clarity on how the district will prevent service reductions at campuses losing Title I allocations, how enrollment declines (from roughly 27,000 to about 21,000 students over five years) affect per‑student resources, and how the district will cover rising salary and benefit costs when federal grants do not automatically increase to match local salary increases.

Next steps: Saenz said a final public comment period is scheduled for May 14 before the finance subcommittee and the district planned to bring the budget for adoption on May 19. Officials encouraged community members to review the online budget materials and to participate in subcommittee meetings.

Ending: District staff thanked attendees and said they would be available for further questions after the session.