Bay City ISD reviews budget outlook; staff outline revenue uncertainty, special‑education staffing costs and custodial contract options

Bay City ISD finance staff presented a high‑level budget overview at Monday’s board workshop and flagged several revenue uncertainties and program pressures as the board begins budget planning.

Mr. Gomez presented the district’s revenue outlook and said countywide property‑value changes and tax compression are affecting revenue forecasts. He described interest income as “going to be down” as fund balances erode and said cash flow will be “a little bit harder to maintain.” The transcript records Mr. Gomez saying the district had a conservative revenue estimate and that, under one scenario, local revenue could increase by “2 and a half million” (quoted as presented).

Gomez and board members discussed how any additional local revenue should be allocated. One speaker said that if new revenue materializes, “40% of that does go to teachers' pay raises,” but emphasized a need for a formal compensation plan before committing funds. The board discussed using additional revenue to offset an operating deficit and noted that enrollment and average daily attendance (ADA) shifts affect state funding; the transcript records a reported ADA figure (presented in the record) but board members did not provide a final adopted estimate at the workshop.

Special education staffing and related contract costs were a recurring topic. Board members and staff said the district spends roughly “about $800,000 each year” on special‑education contract services according to the transcript and that recruiting and retaining in‑house staff is viewed as the primary approach to long‑term savings. The board discussed existing stipends for certain special‑education roles and planned to consider additional stipends or reclassification to attract personnel; staff reported that some stipends for behavior roles already exist.

Energy‑efficiency loans were reviewed: staff said that “as of 05/09/2025, we have about 9.4 left outstanding. Over a million dollar” (transcript phrasing). Board members noted those loans and projects had funded capital work and that loan balances will decline over time.

Staff also reported on prepaid partnership plans (programming that brings students from outside district boundaries). The district’s attorney advised that if students are enrolled with the district, the district remains responsible for providing services even if the students live outside district boundaries; that legal advice led staff to conclude a previously discussed revenue source tied to third‑party prepaid partnerships is not feasible as presented.

The workshop included an extended discussion of a potential custodial services Request for Proposal (RFP). Staff provided a cost analysis comparing current in‑house payout liabilities for accrued leave with projected contract staffing terms. One staff presenter, identified in the record as Miss Crosshoff, said a cost analysis based on current data estimated a district liability figure (reported in the minutes as "$15,005.40 and 39¢" for the custodian group under one scenario) and a smaller amount under a different policy basis (reported as approximately "$6,009.95" in the record). A contract representative (recorded as Brit) told the board the vendor’s offer would provide for three sick days and one week of vacation after a 90‑day probationary period and a second week after a full year, yielding roughly 13 paid days plus six paid holidays in the vendor model. Board members asked whether the contract would address holidays, bad‑weather pay and overtime; staff said those matters would be specified in the RFP and in follow‑up negotiations.

No final budget, tax rate or contract award decisions were made during the workshop. Staff said the custodial RFP would return to the board for discussion and possible action at the next regular meeting so the board could pose questions before formal consideration.