AISD presents $181 million budget plan as parents and staff plead to save librarians, Blackshear and programs

The Austin Independent School District presented a recommended 2026–27 budget on Thursday that administrators say closes roughly $181 million in reductions through a mix of property monetization, campus and department allocation changes and further staffing reductions to be realized between July and December 2026. Superintendent Matthias Segura told trustees the choices were painful: “There are no good decisions,” he said, describing the work of identifying reductions as exhaustive.

The public-comment period that preceded the presentation focused on three themes: proposed conversions of 11.5 librarian full‑time‑equivalent positions to halftime at 23 campuses, the treatment of Blackshear Elementary in upcoming boundary plans, and cuts to programs such as Communities In Schools (CIS) and water polo. Library staff and parents told trustees the district had publicly promised not to cut librarian or counselor positions and that the new plan breaks that assurance. “Cutting my position to halftime makes the district’s expectation of comparable levels of access and activities unrealistic,” a Langford librarian said, asking the board to “hold them to it.”

Several speakers representing Blackshear Elementary called the school’s removal from maps “premature.” Marcus Charles, a parent, said Blackshear’s 135‑year history and role in the East Austin community made its exclusion from boundary discussions “hard to understand.” Multiple callers and written commenters emphasized that Blackshear had not been closed by a board vote and urged trustees to include it in any boundary‑change deliberations.

Administrators presented a set of detailed assumptions and line items to justify the reductions. Katrina Montgomery, who led the budget slides, described district priorities and walked trustees through changes to revenue assumptions, the district’s administrative cost ratio and the allocation methodology. Montgomery said the recommended package includes $60 million in property monetization, $33 million in campus allocations, $32 million in departmental changes and $17 million in targeted departmental reductions; an additional $31 million in staffing reductions would be achieved via restructure, attrition and leveling between July and December 2026.

The presentation included several technical changes to staffing formulas. Dr. Steven Stapleton explained that librarian allocations will remain at one full‑time librarian for campuses with enrollment at or above 400 students but will be reduced to 0.5 allocation for campuses with enrollment below that threshold; the district said those 0.5 allocations would be managed by pairing campuses geographically so staff would be kept whole and assigned across two sites. Stapleton emphasized the district’s stated commitment to find placements for certified staff where possible and described a placement timeframe tied to vacancies and internal confirmations.

Trustees pressed administration for more transparency and granular data. Trustee Hunter said emails from staff suggested placement decisions were not matching the administration’s descriptions of how employees are being reassigned. Trustee Whitley Chu asked for a public, line‑by‑line list of proposed campus reductions and for a report of central‑office positions with total costs above $75,000. Trustees asked for a clearer breakdown of the $31 million staffing target — how much the district expects to capture from vacancy savings, leveling, or other actions — and asked for campus‑by‑campus detail the public can review.

A separate, sharply contested item was a transportation proposal to move middle‑ and high‑school routing toward a hub model (picking students up at neighborhood elementary schools or district‑controlled hubs rather than many individual stops). Trustee Singh and others warned that requiring families to travel to hubs could further depress average daily attendance and impose safety and logistical burdens on families who lack reliable transportation. The superintendent said some districts use hub models and that planners would identify safe hub locations, but trustees insisted on a formal risk assessment before the district pursues the idea.

Administrators also described new recruitment and enrollment measures intended to raise student counts and revenue, including marketing, a recruitment coordinator and an updated registration system; presenters said about 5,120 new‑to‑AISD students had registered for 2026–27 at the time of the presentation. Montgomery said the recommended budget targets a 15% fund balance and uses updated TEA templates and local appraisal projections that will be finalized when certified values arrive in late July.

No budget adoption occurred at the information session; Montgomery reminded trustees of the public‑notice deadlines and that the formal budget adoption vote is scheduled for June 18. Trustees requested a modified budget calendar and monthly scorecards to track projected versus actual spending and asked staff to return with the requested line‑by‑line and campus‑level detail and with clarifying risk assessments for proposals likely to affect enrollment or student safety.

What’s next: The board will consider public comments received and the administration’s follow‑up materials before a formal vote on the 2026–27 budget at a scheduled June 18 meeting. The administration also said it expects to continue placement work for affected staff and will aim to provide additional detail about the $31 million staffing target and transportation options.

Sources: Public comments and recorded messages during the June 4, 2026 AISD Board information session; the district’s 2026–27 recommended budget presentation and staff answers during trustee Q&A.