Ysleta ISD adopts 2025–26 budget and compensation plan, board splits over hourly stipends

Ysleta Independent School District trustees voted 4–3 on June 25 to adopt the district’s 2025–26 budget and an accompanying compensation plan that incorporates state funds from House Bill 2 and uses district fund balance to cover a proposed $22.2 million deficit for the year.

The budget’s adoption follows a presentation from Chief Finance and Operations Officer Lindley Cambern detailing district revenues and expenditures, including certified and preliminary property values and the effect of House Bill 2 on pay schedules. Cambern told the board the district received certified property values of $7,808,000,000 and a preliminary appraisal figure of $8,986,000,000 — an increase she described as about 15.1 percent. She said the proposed budget includes $21.9 million in additional revenues from House Bill 2 and required related expenditures of $16.8 million, leaving a net proposed deficit of $22.2 million that the board will close in part by using fund balance.

Why it matters: the adopted plan places state-directed raises for eligible teachers and support staff onto the district salary schedules while also directing limited general-fund dollars toward hourly employees. That decision prompted substantial public comment and an extended trustee debate because many hourly employees and union leaders said projected insurance premium increases would negate much of the nominal raises.

Public speakers urged the board to prioritize lower‑paid hourly staff. Carmen Hernandez, vice president of the Ysleta Teachers Association, noted House Bill 2’s enactment and urged the board to consider non‑teacher staff: "House Bill 2 was finally approved and signed into law on June 4." Rosie Pettus of West Texas Alliance pressed for representation in investigatory meetings and for higher tutoring and personal‑day allowances, saying, "Representation during investigatory or disciplinary meetings is not just a courtesy. It is a fundamental safeguard of due process, fairness, and labor standards." Alejandro Garcia, a special education teacher, warned that proposed changes to health insurance could leave employees worse off: "A raise that disappears into higher premiums and deductibles is not a raise, it's a loss."

Board debate centered on how to distribute limited local funds on top of the state pass‑throughs. Administration recommended placing teacher retention allotments (TRA) and support‑staff retention allotments (SSRA) onto salary schedules where state rules require them, giving classroom teachers differing base increases ($2,500 for teachers with three to fewer than five years of experience, $5,000 for those with five or more), and applying a 1.5 percent increase for hourly non‑exempt employees in combination with a one‑time lump sum for certain other groups. Trustees proposed alternatives during the meeting, including limiting a $500 one‑time stipend to lower‑paid hourly workers, or expanding stipends more broadly; trustees and staff ran on‑the‑record calculations in a recess to model options against the $900,000 of locally allocated funds discussed in the workshop.

Trustee Shane Haggerty proposed a compromise to give a 1.5 percent pay increase to hourly employees making more than $20 an hour and a $500 one‑time stipend to those making less, a plan modeled during the meeting that administration estimated would cost roughly $100,000–$200,000 more than the recommendation. Trustee Chris Hernandez pressed for a larger one‑time payment targeted at workers earning $15 an hour or less. Trustee Cruz Ochoa, Trustee Connie Woodruff and President Charlie Bustillos argued for adopting the administration recommendation to avoid accelerating the district’s structural deficit and risking future staffing and program cuts.

The board’s action: President Charlie Bustillos moved to adopt the proposed 2025–26 budget and compensation plan as presented; the motion carried 4–3. The motion document and administration presentation state the budget relies on using $22.2 million of fund balance in the general fund and includes a child‑nutrition use of fund balance of approximately $538,000; debt service is balanced without use of fund balance. Cambern told trustees the district expects a deficit of about $49 million in the current fiscal year and that the proposed budget would lower the projected year‑end unassigned fund balance to an estimated $11 million if followed as presented.

What’s next: trustees acknowledged the board may amend the budget later in the year — administration told the board it could bring amendments for consideration — but several trustees warned that adding recurring compensation beyond the proposed plan would deepen the structural deficit and lengthen the recovery period. Trustees also discussed the sunset risk: House Bill 2 allotments include a sunset provision currently scheduled for 06/30/2027, meaning the district’s long‑term obligations could change if the Legislature does not make the funding permanent.

Ending note: the adoption closes a contentious public hearing and workshop process. Administration emphasized controls on nonessential spending and said the district aims to stabilize its finances within three fiscal years if the plan is followed.