Lake Travis ISD trustees review preliminary 2025–26 budget, staffing study and possible reductions

Lake Travis ISD trustees on Tuesday reviewed a preliminary operating budget for the 2025–26 school year, a five‑year fiscal forecast and the results of an external staffing and pay study. Interim Superintendent Dr. Flores and district staff told the board the packet is an early model tied to property‑value projections and pending legislative action on school funding.

The presentation, led by Pam (staff member) and Brad Gerke, director of finance, laid out a set of assumptions including a no‑change enrollment projection for 2025–26, a preliminary 5.5% decrease in taxable appraised values and three revenue scenarios tied to possible outcomes in House Bill 2. "I'm here to present the preliminary, operating budget for next school year, 2526. And this is, again, a preliminary look," Pam said. The packet showed the district facing a general‑fund deficit under current assumptions and a range of impacts depending on whether the legislature increases the basic allotment.

Why it matters: the district said changes in state funding, local property values and recapture (excess local revenue sent to the state) will drive how deep any cuts must be or whether one‑time reserves will be used. The packet projects recapture dropping from about $50.6 million in the current year to roughly $34.0 million next year under one scenario; staff cautioned those figures will change as the Travis Central Appraisal District finalizes values and as the legislature moves bills.

Staff emphasized the presentation reflects several moving parts. District staff explained that if the basic allotment increases under the committee substitute for HB2 currently moving through the legislature, the district could see a reduction in its projected deficit; staff did not adopt the committee substitute numbers in the materials but modeled several alternatives. The report also incorporated a proposed change in the district fiscal year (from Sept. 1–Aug. 31 to July 1–June 30) that creates a one‑time true‑up of startup and payroll timing costs estimated in the presentation at roughly $10 million.

Trustees and staff discussed a three‑tier list of possible reductions. Tier 1 focuses on minimizing classroom impacts and preserving student services; items discussed included pausing certain district programs funded with one‑time ESSER dollars, eliminating some paid flex‑time payouts and seeking attrition for vacancies rather than immediate layoffs. More consequential ideas discussed for possible later implementation included modifying secondary master schedules (moving high school from a block schedule toward a traditional seven‑period day) and eliminating some PLC (professional learning community) conference periods for non‑core subjects to reduce staffing needs. Board members repeatedly stressed that major changes to schedules or PLC time should not be rushed: trustees said the district has passed the scheduling “drop‑dead” date for fall implementation and asked staff to seek deeper community, student and teacher feedback before deciding.

The board also received a TASB staffing review and a TASB pay‑structure study presented by Susan Fambro (staff member). "The staffing review really yielded few recommendations," Susan said, noting several TASB suggestions and the district's decision to treat them as options rather than immediate proposals. TASB recommended, among other items, reviewing counselor staffing ratios, exploring alternative clinic staffing models and considering some clerical consolidations; the report also described market data and several cost models for a general pay increase (GPI) ranging from 0% to 2.0% across groups. TASB highlighted special‑education teacher and paraprofessional pay as a high‑need area where ongoing stipends or higher hourly pay may reduce reliance on contract providers.

Trustees pressed staff for implementation detail and transparency. Board members asked for clear, itemized communications for the community (examples of district cuts considered and the services they fund), additional data on the timing and dollar effect of schedule changes, and specific proposals for any program realignments (for example, how and where special‑education programs would be located if positions are consolidated). Trustee discussion also framed a parallel enrollment strategy: several trustees urged the district to pursue competitive outreach and program options to attract or retain students, noting revenue is tied to attendance.

What's next: staff said they will return with updated models and more detailed recommendations as appraisal values and legislative action crystalize. Pam told trustees she expects updated property values after the appraisal district meeting next week and proposed bringing further budget updates at the district's April and May meetings and again at the June 4 budget workshop. Susan and other staff offered to return with a more detailed explanation of specific TASB recommendations (for example, how many counselors would be added to meet recommended ratios, or how library/clinic staffing alternatives would affect service levels).

Trustees provided directional guidance rather than formal votes: they asked staff to continue refining the models, defer major schedule changes for implementation this fall, pursue broad stakeholder input on any structural changes, and present clear, item‑level descriptions the community can review before any decision.