Las Cruces Public Schools finance subcommittee reviews proposed FY26–27 budget, cites enrollment dip and rising benefits costs

Las Cruces Public Schools’ finance subcommittee held a virtual meeting May 14 to review the district’s proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget and to ask staff detailed questions about reserves, capital projects and personnel costs.

Chair Frank opened the session and moved agenda item J — the FY26–27 budget presentation — up in the order of business. Finance staff and budget presenters summarized the district’s five funding buckets: general (operations), special revenue (grants), capital, debt service and agency funds. Mr. Saenz said the capital fund that supports renovations and replacement projects is estimated at about $126,300,000; the district’s operational (general) fund was described on presentation slides as roughly $365,000,000.

“Capital funds are restricted to repair, maintenance and equipment,” Mr. Saenz said, answering a question from Chair Frank about whether bond or capital money could be repurposed for salaries.

Why it matters: the presentation emphasized that 77% of the district’s classroom-related spending is dedicated to in-class instruction and related supports, and that personnel costs make up the majority of the budget. The district also faces a national and local enrollment decline that moderates revenue gains even as the Public Education Department’s unit value rose.

Board members pressed staff on several specifics. Chair Frank asked whether debt service is paid by property taxes; Mr. Saenz confirmed counties collect the taxes and distribute debt-service funds. Members also asked how the district plans to sustain recently installed safety systems. Mr. Saenz said operations of the weapons-detection system will likely have to be funded from operational dollars going forward and that he would follow up with annual operation cost estimates.

Finance director Alex Liu walked through the district’s fund-balance strategy. He said the district presently holds roughly $26 million in fund balance and proposes committing portions of that balance to priority uses, including an operational cash cushion to cover federal-program reimbursements (which operate on a 45–60 day lag) and to address a roughly $11 million insurance premium coming due in July.

Legislative and benefit changes were also discussed. Presenters noted approval of Senate Bill 151 (a roughly 1% average increase) and House Bill 47 (changes tied to employer contributions for 80/20 arrangements). At the same time, staff reported projected increases in medical premiums (~9.95%) and vision (~4%) and said those increases will affect take-home pay unless the district offsets costs elsewhere.

On staffing and program spending, Mr. Saenz flagged instructional resource allocations (about $11 million for materials, K–12 science adoption, and expanded STEM outreach), health and wellness investments (nurses, athletic trainers and a wellness “Casita” center), and ongoing capital work at multiple sites including HVAC and roof projects at elementary and middle schools.

Board members also sought clarity on functional reporting. Mr. Saenz explained function codes used by the Public Education Department (for example, 1,000 = instruction; 2,100 = student support), and reconciled differences in reported FTEs that appear in different functions because roles are coded differently for Medicaid claiming and instructional accounting.

What’s next: staff said the budget will be brought forward to the full board for adoption at the upcoming board meeting next Tuesday; they invited further questions in the intervening week.