Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Tax Rate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board told Lubbock ISD faces an $8.1 million projected deficit under current law; tax compression and state aid limits discussed
Summary
Chief budget staff updated trustees on preliminary property values, ADA adjustments, and a projected $8.1 million deficit under current law; staff cautioned that proposed state funding increases would leave limited unrestricted funds and described the timetable for adopting the budget and tax rate.
Doctor Wilkins, staff member for Lubbock ISD, told the board the district had received preliminary property values and adjusted attendance figures, and presented early 2025–26 budget projections and a timeline for required board actions.
Why it matters: the district must adopt a budget and set a tax rate on a state timetable. Those decisions determine how the district funds salaries, operations and bond debt and shape planning for next school year.
Wilkins said preliminary tax values rose about 1.8% from certified 2024 values and that he adjusted attendance (ADA) estimates as the year closes. “It looks at property tax compression. ... It’s about a 4¢ decrease from last year,” Doctor Wilkins said, explaining the effect of compression on the local tax rate.
On revenues and expenditures, Wilkins said operating revenue estimates changed slightly because of ADA adjustments and indirect‑cost updates. He outlined expenditure shifts identified since the prior presentation, including a roughly $3 million move related to computers previously covered by ESSER funds that must be returned to the general fund and increases in contracted services and materials. He reported a current projected general‑fund deficit of about $8,100,000 under current law and assumptions.
Wilkins described timing and next steps: the budget adoption was scheduled for June 26 and a tax‑rate adoption for later in the month; trustees and finance staff will continue to refine payroll assumptions (including salary scenarios), debt service calculations and food‑service projections as final tax values and state actions are received.
On state proposals to increase per‑student funding, Wilkins and trustees warned the public that much of any increase would be restricted by program codes. “When you break it all down, the best calculation I can come up to right now is a million, million 5, maybe 2 at the best of free money without strings attached,” Doctor Wilkins said, noting that most proposed increases come with program intent codes that constrain how funds can be spent.
Trustees asked whether the board could maintain the current tax rate to close the deficit. Wilkins explained the state’s equalization approach: local property tax changes typically reduce the amount the state contributes because the state’s share is adjusted so that total funding targets are met; in short, raising the local tax rate does not simply add net new revenue if the state offsets it under current law.
Wilkins and trustees discussed other timing and technical considerations, including the state comptroller’s confidence interval for appraisals (which can trigger penalties if local appraisals fall outside expected ranges), the one‑year lag for some state payments and that the district must continue refining assumptions until the legislature and TEA finalize rules.
Ending: staff said scenario work on salary proposals and additional budget adjustments will appear at future finance‑committee meetings and subsequent board workshops as final state and valuation data arrive.
