Lewisville ISD staff preview fiscal 2025 outlook, warn of possible multi‑million-dollar deficits without legislative changes
Loading...
Summary
Finance and HR staff presented fiscal-year 2025 projections, updated enrollment and property-value signals, and modeled compensation scenarios that show a potential multi‑million-dollar deficit next year unless state actions or district reductions occur.
Lewisville ISD finance and human-resources leaders told the board Monday night that enrollment decline, recapture and rising preliminary property values could produce a multi‑million‑dollar budget gap for fiscal 2026 unless the Legislature provides material new funding or the district implements further reductions.
Scott (finance) and Doctor. Rapp outlined fiscal-year 2025 tracking and initial planning for 2026. The district adopted a 2024–25 budget based on projected enrollment of 48,100 and estimated ADA of 44,733; actual snapshot enrollment and attendance have tracked lower. Scott reported January enrollment near 47,124 and a projected year-end ADA of about 44,624.
The district also received preliminary T2 property values from the comptroller higher than the budget assumption: staff said the preliminary figure rose to roughly $57.7 billion (about a 6% increase), higher than the 3% figure used in the adopted budget. The district is appealing those valuations, staff said, because higher T2 values can reduce state funding share and increase recapture obligations.
Scott said the district is projecting expenditure savings on non-payroll items (projected under-spend near $12 million total) but faces payroll pressures, including previously approved one-time employee payments that were not in the original budget. He listed ongoing uncertainties including attendance rates, federal impact aid receipts, Medicaid SHARS reimbursements (projected far lower than prior years), and possible legislative action.
HR and finance presented compensation scenarios: a 2% or 3% midpoint increase and an alternate combining a 2% midpoint increase with a $1,000 one-time payment. Rapp and staff provided scenarios showing the district would need to identify roughly $11 million in sustained reductions to reach a baseline position before considering compensation increases. In a 2% raise scenario the district estimated a $14.6 million shortfall; in the 3% scenario they estimated a $18.5–$25.3 million gap depending on assumptions. Staff illustrated how various legislative proposals (basic allotment increases, safety and security allotments, golden penny adjustments) would reduce but not necessarily erase projected deficits for a declining-enrollment district.
Staff recommended continued planning: identify $11 million in reductions, monitor T2 appeal results, and track pending legislation (including the possibility that the state will provide hold-harmless provisions tied to homestead exemptions). Trustees urged continued outreach to legislators and emphasized the importance of competitive compensation to retain teachers; several trustees said they would press legislators for larger state investments rather than deeper local cuts.
Human Resources also outlined a plan to move substitute staffing back in-house for the 2025–26 year, proposing modest increases to daily rates within an existing budget to increase the fill rate from 65% to an estimated 81% without exceeding the current budget allocation for substitutes.
