Carrollton‑Farmers Branch ISD outlines multi‑year budget cuts and staffing moves amid school‑finance uncertainty

Carrollton‑Farmers Branch ISD administrators told the Board of Trustees at a work‑study meeting that the district is planning multi‑year staffing and budget reductions as it waits for final school‑finance legislation and tracks declining student enrollment.

The presentation, led by district budget and human‑resources staff with an outside staffing consultant, framed the issue as a combination of revenue uncertainty at the state level and local constraints: the district receives the bulk of its revenue from property taxes and faces a projected decline in some federal funding streams.

Carla Stacney, budget director, said during the meeting, “we anticipate a decrease in federal revenues. And that reduction is because of, reduction in funding for the SHARS program.” The administration told the board that roughly 84% of the district's revenue budget is projected to come from local property taxes and about 14% from the state, making local taxable values and attendance trends especially consequential.

Administrators said they are working from conservative planning assumptions: projected taxable value growth of about 2% this year and a combined district tax rate near $0.95 per $100 of assessed value (about $0.75 for maintenance and operations and $0.20 for debt service in the presentation). Officials also emphasized that final property values and refined average daily attendance (ADA) figures will not be available until the summer PEIMS and tax‑appraisal cycles are complete.

The board heard specific cost‑management steps already in motion. Departments were asked to prepare a 10% reduction in non‑payroll budgets over two years (5% in 2025‑26 and 5% in 2026‑27). Human resources reported a hiring freeze enacted in January and an ongoing position‑control clean‑up; Dr. Tammy Smoskis, assistant superintendent for human resources, said the HR team "we've probably touched over 1,200 PCNs, in our department." The district estimated about $9 million in salary budget associated with currently vacant positions and said initial department reductions and position consolidations could yield roughly $6.4 million in savings from the non‑payroll and payroll consolidation exercises presented.

Staff provided preliminary counts for position closures and absorptions: 21 elementary positions and 16 secondary positions were identified as closed through attrition or absorption, with an elementary‑level savings example of about $1.4 million using an average $70,000 salary assumption. The administration also said it is auditing longer‑term vacant positions and expects to present a subtotal for consolidation savings within weeks.

An outside consultant, Mr. Graham of OKC, framed the broader funding gap in historical terms. "If we take $1,500 a child times your current enrollment, then you're about 37 and a half million dollars behind the ball," he said, and later summarized a larger shortfall including enrollment decline as "about 42, 42 and a half million dollar dollar for dollar nut," attributing the gap to stagnant basic allotment levels since 2019 when adjusted for inflation.

Board members asked for more granular backup and for regular forecasting. One trustee pressed for a quarterly fiscal forecast and a more detailed list of the non‑personnel "stones" the district has checked to find savings. Administrators agreed to prepare further documentation before the next budget workshop and said the TASB salary study and a staffing‑count analysis from the consultant should be available in the coming week or weeks.

The presentation also included a district analysis of the secondary block schedule. The consultant estimated the current block configuration represents about 93 full‑time equivalent positions and an approximate recurring cost of $6,511,000; administrators described that as an investment figure to be weighed against instructional and scheduling considerations rather than an automatic target for cuts. Board members and staff emphasized that any scheduling changes would require 12 months or more of planning and review of student‑achievement and program impacts.

Administrators repeatedly cautioned that final compensation decisions hinge on the outcome of current school‑finance legislation. The presenters described competing House and Senate proposals and said no final revenue template was available at the time of the meeting. The district noted a prior TASB‑supported teacher pay adjustment in 2023‑24 that averaged a 3% increase and cost about $3.8 million, and described preliminary scenarios in which new state revenue might require statutory spending rules (for example, a previously discussed 40% required spend with 75% targeted to classroom staff would have translated to roughly $4.8 million for teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses under certain versions of proposed bills).

No formal board action or vote was taken during the presentation; the session was a workshop for information, data review, and direction‑setting. Administrators said they will return with a refined estimate of consolidation savings, TASB salary study results, and updated revenue forecasts at the next budget workshop. They also warned that legislative outcomes could materially change any compensation or deeper‑cut proposals the board might consider.

For now, the district's next steps are to finalize the position‑control audit, continue the TASB market‑pay review, prepare the departments' requested reductions, and deliver quarterly forecasts and more detailed justifications to the board in advance of formal budget adoption.