Boerne ISD workshop outlines budget gaps after House Bill 2; staff proposes voter‑approval tax plan and pay increases

At a June 9 workshop, Boerne ISD staff gave trustees a final briefing before budget adoption on the financial effects of recent state legislation and local options to fund a compensation and capacity plan.

Wes (district finance staff) and other presenters summarized changes created by House Bill 2, estimating new state revenue streams and offsetting losses. The district estimated $3,000,000 in revenue from the teacher‑retention allotment (a $2,500–$5,000 per‑teacher allotment as implemented locally), about $470,000 from a support‑staff allotment, and other additions including roughly $450,000 for special‑education initial evaluations, $350,000 for expanded school‑safety allotments, $1,100,000 for a basic‑cost allotment and roughly $940,000 from an increase to the basic allotment. Offsetting those gains, staff said House Bill 2 eliminated a prior “hold harmless” compression payment the district had been receiving, which the district estimates reduced its state funding by about $2,400,000.

Wes told trustees the district has identified roughly $1,500,000 of internal reductions and currently projects approximately $8,900,000 in available recurring funding for the 2025–26 budget if the board adopts a plan that includes three additional local “golden pennies.” That three‑penny proposal would generate roughly $4,300,000 in net local revenue, staff said; without the voter approval the district’s model would leave an estimated $1,000,000 deficit under the recommended priorities.

Clayton Benford, the district’s bond and election counsel, described mechanics and risks of a voter approval tax ratification election. He said the election would be a single proposition presenting a single tax rate and dollar amount for voter approval on a uniform election date and would be decided by a simple majority of those voters (50% plus one). Benford and staff described additional procedural choices (for example, how the board could adopt an interest‑and‑sinking, or I&S, rate together with a maintenance‑and‑operations, or M&O, increase while preserving certain protections if voters reject the proposition).

Staff presented a “competitive and strategic financial plan” (CSFP) focused on compensation. Key proposals: raise starting teacher pay toward $60,000; increase paraprofessional starting pay to $16 per hour and auxiliary starting pay to $15 per hour; provide a 3% increase for other professional staff; deploy targeted retention stipends; and increase the district’s contribution to employee health‑insurance premiums. Staff estimated compensation and benefit changes would cost about $6,000,000 if the three golden pennies are approved and about $3,900,000 without them. The district also reported a TRS (Teacher Retirement System) employer premium increase, which staff estimated would raise district healthcare costs by roughly $690,000 for the coming year.

Presenters recommended several operational priorities to accompany compensation, including a $250,000 contribution to capital replacement, a $100,000 projected increase for property insurance, and increased campus non‑payroll budgets; staff said those commitments would produce a balanced budget if the three golden pennies are approved and a manageable $1,000,000 deficit if they are not.

The workshop also covered proposed changes to facility‑rental fees. Patricia Flores from maintenance explained the district currently collects roughly $200,000–$300,000 annually in rental fees and that proposed hourly rate increases would move Boerne ISD closer to peer districts’ rates. Trustees raised community‑access concerns and recommended a phased or tiered increase rather than an immediate doubling of many fees; staff said they would return revised rental terms that include insurance requirements, limits on long‑term campus occupancy and conditions for large events requiring law‑enforcement presence.

No final vote was taken at the workshop. Staff said they will present a budget for adoption at the next meeting and may place a voter‑approval tax ratification election on a future ballot if the board directs them to do so.

Ending — The budget adoption vote and any board decision to call a voter approval election are scheduled for upcoming meetings; staff said they will return materials and final resolutions after tax‑valuation numbers are certified and after further consultation with the district’s bond counsel.