Edinburg CISD finance committee hears legislative update; district models $600 per-student gain if House Bill 2 survives

Edinburg CISD finance officials and a school-finance consultant on Wednesday warned the district’s finance committee that the state legislative session will determine key revenue assumptions for the 2025–26 budget and that uncertainty could leave the district with a multimillion-dollar shortfall.

Josh Haney, senior vice president of finance with Moat Casey, told the committee the session “is going pretty fast and furious” and that school-finance provisions are being considered across many committees in Austin. He said the House’s primary vehicle for increased school funding, House Bill 2, would raise the state basic allotment by $395 and — based on Moat Casey’s modeling — translate into about a $600 per-student gain for Edinburg CISD if the bill’s provisions remain intact.

The committee was told why that matters: district Chief Financial Officer Adele O’Dell (identified in the meeting as the district’s finance presenter) said the district is preparing multiple budget scenarios and that, “if no state aid is provided... we are predicting a $5 to $6,000,000 deficit going into the budget year of 25–26.” O’Dell said the district’s modeling assumes a range of state outcomes and that staff are working on compensation scenarios to show what different levels of state aid would allow.

House Bill 2 and related budget proposals. Haney summarized differences between the House and Senate budget proposals and key provisions in House Bill 2 that affect local districts: an increase in the basic allotment, changes to special education funding to tie revenue more closely to services rather than instructional arrangement, delayed increases to some weights (compensatory and bilingual) until year two of the biennium, and new hold-harmless provisions for sudden drops in attendance or state value adjustments. He also noted Senate and House proposals differ on how to spend additional property-tax relief and that the governor’s veto power adds uncertainty after the May adjournment.

Haney cautioned that some provisions would steer more dollars toward small and rural districts and that districts like Edinburg will see more modest per-pupil gains than the smallest districts. He also pointed to new requirements in the bill that could affect local staffing choices: the bill would phase in limits on the share of classes taught by uncertified teachers in the foundation curriculum and would increase the share of year-over-year funding increases that must be dedicated to compensation (the presenters described the proposal moving from 30% to 40% of an increase, with substantial shares required to go to teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses).

Local budget implications and district priorities. O’Dell walked the committee through local projections tied to the state scenarios and the district’s current fund balance. She said the district estimates roughly $11.8 million in additional revenue for Edinburg CISD under the House Bill 2 basic-allotment increase (the $395 figure Haney cited) and that, historically, the district has used one-time carryforwards and transfers to support pay increases. O’Dell presented a scenario in which maintaining last year’s tiered compensation plan would cost the district about $5.3 million in operations and a historic midyear supplement of $500 per employee would total roughly $2.5 million, a combined $7.8 million increase in salary-related costs.

District leaders emphasized priorities if additional state funding materializes: the committee and staff repeatedly stated that raises for staff are a top priority and should be structured so that “staff come first.” O’Dell and board members discussed the legal and formulaic constraints on how new state revenue must be used, and staff said they will return with precise allocations once legislative outcomes are final.

Other impacts flagged to the committee included: - Special education: Haney said House Bill 2 would change funding to reflect services provided rather than instructional placement; he told the committee there is a roughly $2 billion statewide gap between special-education revenues and expenditures now and that the change could better align revenue and costs. - Prekindergarten: presenters said expanded eligibility and partial/full-day funding in the proposal could generate roughly $7 million in state revenue for the district to offset costs the district currently absorbs. - School safety allotment: the proposal examined would increase per-campus funding for school safety (speakers noted an illustrative increase from $15,000 to $32,000 per campus), which the district said would reduce but not eliminate local costs for campus officers. - SHARS (Medicaid school-health reimbursements): Haney noted the House has set aside funds to offset federal SHARS reductions that reduced district reimbursements; district staff said state relief would be welcome but its final size is uncertain.

Next steps. Staff said they are continuing department-level planning, reviewing TASB (Texas Association of School Boards) studies, and meeting again with the district’s finance consultant on Friday to refine modeling as bills move. The finance chair and board president urged committee members to be “fully present” at budget meetings so the committee can participate in decisions; no formal compensation amounts were approved at the meeting.

A short procedural motion at the meeting’s end closed the session after roughly an hour of discussion.