Boerne ISD trustees map budget amid new state funding proposals; board flags disparities in HB2

Boerne ISD finance staff presented updated budget assumptions and multiple revenue scenarios to the board, showing how proposed state funding changes could alter the district's available resources for 2025–26.

Under the district's current assumptions staff reported enrollment of 11,237 and an average daily attendance (ADA) of about 10,196 (roughly 94 percent of enrollment). Preliminary market values showed a 5 percent increase to about $21.1 billion and a 9 percent increase in taxable values to about $14.2 billion; the district scaled values down 2 percent to anticipate property appeals. Those yields would produce an estimated maintenance and operations levy of about $78.6 million and an interest and sinking (I&S) levy of about $40.4 million.

Wes (staff) and other finance staff modeled three top scenarios:

- Under current law, staff showed roughly $52,000 of projected available funding before addressing compensation and initiatives, which would translate to an adopting a $2.7 million deficit after proposed compensation adjustments.

- Under Senate Bill 26 modeling (staff estimated roughly $3.5 million in additional teacher compensation funding), the district's modeled available funding would increase, producing an estimated $1.4 million shortfall or lower deficit when projected compensation adjustments are applied.

- Under House Bill 2 modeling (staff estimated about $3.6 million additional state revenue for the district, with a $340 per ADA assumed increase in the basic allotment), the district's modeled available funding totaled about $2.9 million before budget initiatives; after staff adjustments that scenario produced an estimated $250,000 deficit in the presentation.

Trustees repeatedly emphasized that the figures were models and depend on final legislation and certified property values. Rich Senna, trustee, said HB2 as drafted would create winners and losers across the state and read from a letter the board sent to state legislators asking for a minimum per‑ADA increase. "We request that an amendment be offered that creates a minimum increase for districts," Senna read, and staff described working with other local CFOs and area superintendents to coordinate responses.

Trustees and staff discussed hold‑harmless adjustments and how HB2's formulas could reduce some districts' hold‑harmless protections. Staff said earlier iterations of the legislation threatened to remove hold‑harmless amounts that currently yield several million dollars annually for Boerne ISD; those protections were the subject of ongoing conversations with state lawmakers and the district's consulting firm, Mo Casey.

On compensation, staff explained how SB26 and HB2 would direct money to salaries. For example, staff summarized SB26's proposal as additional pay steps for teachers (an extra $2,500 for teachers with three to four years of experience and $5,000 for teachers with five or more years, as modeled for the district). HB2 was modeled as an increase to the basic allotment with a requirement that 40 percent of incremental funds be spent on compensation and 75 percent of that amount go to classroom teachers, nurses, librarians and counselors; the remaining 25 percent of the 40 percent would apply to nonadministrative staff (custodians, maintenance, bus drivers, paraprofessionals).

Board members heard a summary of the district's internal budget work: a Budget Strategy Advisory Committee identified approximately $1.43 million in cost reductions through departmental savings, position reviews and transfer of some items to state instructional allotments. Staff prioritized five proposed additions totaling just under $1 million that would be considered in June: special education stipends, funding to reduce reliance on higher‑cost contracted services, three P‑TECH positions for career pathways, two positions to operate and maintain the Aquatic Learning Center, and three bus drivers (intended to reduce substitute burdens on coaches and provide greater route reliability).

The district also reviewed debt service strategy. Staff outlined that the district has no new bonds to sell next year but is evaluating defeasement of callable 2016 bonds to reduce future interest costs and take advantage of a principal payment ladder. They estimated that defeasing a portion of the 2016 issue could produce multi‑million dollar interest savings; staff cautioned that proposed state legislation (referred to in the presentation as House Bill 19) could reduce state funding if a district schedules payments above required principal and interest amounts.

Child nutrition and federal programs were summarized: staff proposed a balanced child nutrition fund budget of about $3.7 million based on roughly 5,800 average daily meals and a 52 percent participation rate; staff also listed federal revenues including IDEA‑B at about $2.0 million, National School Lunch and Breakfast programs at about $1.5 million, and Title I at about $650,000.

Trustees directed staff to continue scenario planning and outreach. Mr. Scott (district finance staff) said he was contacting CFOs in the other similarly affected districts to compare models and that communications staff would prepare public messaging and outreach to parents and the Budget Strategy Advisory Committee. The board did not take any formal votes on new taxes, budget adoption or personnel at the workshop; staff scheduled the formal budget adoption for the June meeting following final legislative action and certification of property values.