Interim CFO warns Cedar Hill ISD faces $6M shortfall; trustees briefed on priority cuts and two‑path plan

Cedar Hill ISD’s interim chief financial officer told trustees Thursday the district faces an estimated operating shortfall for fiscal 2024‑25 of roughly $6 million and presented a menu of staffing and operating adjustments, revenue options and two multi‑year recovery scenarios.

Amy Drozd, who said she has served as interim CFO since mid‑September, told the board the district’s revenue picture for the current year had improved in some respects — she estimated “we're going to be about $3,000,000 better in revenue than what we budgeted” — but payroll and staffing costs have outpaced those gains and left a projected deficit. Drozd said the district had received about $1.1 million in one‑time revenue following a property‑value audit settlement, but she warned that this is not recurring funding.

Drozd outlined four priority tiers of actions the administration has grouped by feasibility and urgency. Priority 1 items are already under work and are expected to be implemented for 2025‑26 if resignations and attrition allow; examples include holding elementary vacancies (estimated 3–10 positions) and sharing assistant principal assignments at small campuses, moving some transportation work in‑house, and postponing some security hires. Priority 1 savings were estimated between roughly $425,000 and $1.6 million depending on scope. Priority 2 options would be more structurally impactful — examples include elementary rezoning and repurposing a campus (noting the district would prefer repurposing rather than leaving buildings vacant) and middle‑school consolidation; Drozd estimated priority 2 savings in the $2.0–$2.6 million range. Priority 3 items (longer‑term or revenue generating) include expanding Montessori enrollment, pursuing an 1882 agreement with charter partners, and selling surplus real estate (one‑time revenue). Priority 4 items were options the administration is not recommending now, including moving child nutrition in‑house or large vendor leasing arrangements such as a solar‑battery lease that would surrender property rights for many years.

Drozd presented two recovery scenarios she labeled Plan A (more aggressive) and Plan B (less aggressive). Both scenarios rely on a mix of the priority actions, continued recruitment to slow enrollment decline, and possible one‑time property sales. She said Plan A would implement more of the priority 2 items sooner and help restore fund balance faster, but risks community unrest and potential enrollment losses if families object. Plan B would extend the timeline and allow more time to plan but would leave fund balance lower for a longer period.

Drozd gave specific fund‑balance figures in her presentation. With the currently projected deficit the district’s general‑fund balance could decline to about $10.9 million at the end of 2024‑25 (the CFO said two years earlier the fund balance was about $20.8 million). In the presentation she said the district needs roughly $7.0 million in either additional revenue or expense reductions to balance recurring revenues and expenses going into 2025‑26 (she cautioned that amount did not count one‑time revenue that had been recorded to 2024‑25).

Board members pressed for more specificity on timelines, the projected savings tied to particular personnel actions and whether property sales used in the scenarios were reasonably realizable before the next fiscal close. Trustees also raised operational concerns: some said they opposed merging middle schools or cutting campus leadership and counseling positions because of potential impacts on instruction and student safety; others asked what state legislative relief would be required to fully close the gap and discussed the implications of the 2019 state funding rule that earmarks roughly 30 percent of any new state allotment for salaries and benefits.

Drozd said the administration will produce a tracking sheet, continue weekly administrative budget meetings, and return to the board with more detailed timelines and a three‑year projection that shows step‑by‑step how reductions and one‑time revenues change fund balance. No board action was taken on specific cuts at the meeting; trustees directed staff to continue developing the recommended actions and share firmer figures for the next meetings.