Socorro ISD trustees run budget workshop to close $8.4 million gap; public warns of layoffs

Socorro Independent School District trustees on Thursday conducted a hands-on workshop to test ways of closing an $8.4 million preliminary budget gap for fiscal 2025–26, while staff and board members discussed cuts, one‑time transfers into the health fund and the possibility of asking voters for additional local revenue.

The board workshop, introduced by David Solis, the district’s chief financial officer, used a scenario “budget activity game” that let trustees adjust revenue and expenditure assumptions. Solis said the group would work from a starting deficit of $8,400,000 and test options such as enrollment assumptions, pay‑scale changes, reductions to campus and department budgets, reduced work days and device‑replacement timing.

Why it matters: trustees must adopt the final budget in June and decisions this spring shape whether the district will reduce staff, shift benefits costs or seek new local revenues. The workshop highlighted trade‑offs for sustaining operations, restoring the health fund and avoiding repeated short‑term borrowing.

Solis told the board that one of the assumptions participants used was a projected enrollment decline of 772 students, which he said equated roughly to a $7,000,000 revenue drop; the workshop template used an attendance baseline of 94.5 percent. He also presented a device‑replacement option for about 45,000 student devices at approximately $800 each spread over five years, which the district modeled as about $7,200,000 per year on that schedule. He said the template counted about $9,000,000 in positions funded this year that would not be carried forward and a planned roughly $7,000,000 transfer into the district health fund.

A public commenter raised personnel and fiscal concerns. Hector Gonzalez, identified in public comment as a resident, told trustees “According to a local headline, Socorro ISD plans to lay off 300 employees,” and outlined figures he attributed to district reporting and local coverage, including references to a $33,000,000 projected deficit, a prior $22,000,000 shortfall in the adopted budget, and a $25,000,000 loan the district took to meet payroll. Gonzalez’s statements reflected his view of the district’s staffing and oversight history; trustees and staff framed the workshop as a scenario exercise rather than a set of final decisions.

Conservator/facilitator Mr. Kim emphasized the workshop’s hypothetical nature: “what you discussed here tonight is not necessarily set in stone,” and framed the session as a way to build board consensus on policy direction before formal budget adoption. David Gutierrez and other staff members facilitated breakout tables where trustees experimented with combinations of cuts and revenue options.

Discussion points included whether passage of House Bill 2 (HB 2) would produce recurring state revenue and the share of any state increase that must be applied to compensation. Staff walked trustees through the HB 2 assumptions used in the template: a modest increase in the basic allotment per student (presented in the workshop as roughly $395 in one scenario) that would generate district revenue but would also require a statutory portion of that amount to be applied to employee compensation; the board discussed ways to offset that recurring cost, for example by implementing a one‑time lump sum or restructuring local contributions to benefits.

Trustees and staff discussed a range of expenditure options trustees could direct staff to study further: modest percentage reductions in pay scales (1–3 percent scenarios), cutting 5–15 staff positions by attrition or vacancy, lowering the district health contribution in stages, reducing the number of work days under certain employee calendars, trimming department budgets (examples given of 7.5–10 percent) and targeted campus reductions while preserving classroom services. Staff reported they had identified roughly 250 positions that were currently unfilled and could be removed from the new budget; they also said natural attrition had already reduced some departmental head counts.

Revenue options discussed included a potential tax ratification election (TRE) — trustees discussed what various penny increases would yield locally and how to present a purpose for the revenue to voters — and the budget effects of proposed state policy changes (vouchers and HB 2). Staff warned that some fee or program reductions, such as changing aquatic‑center availability or closing the district clinic, could shift costs elsewhere (for example, transportation or outside provider charges) and required further analysis.

Directives and next steps: trustees asked staff for follow‑up information on several items to inform formal budget options, including a detailed breakdown of positions closed or unfilled since last year, a clearer cost estimate and implication for the district health plan if the board moved the district toward partial self‑funding, the projected net effect of HB 2 under multiple scenarios, and operational impacts and timing for potential reductions to the clinic or aquatic center. Multiple trustees asked administration to begin planning public engagement and a citizens’ advisory group if the board ultimately decides to pursue a TRE.

No final budget decisions or formal votes occurred at the workshop. Solis and other staff said the exercise was intended to generate board direction and that adoption of the final FY25‑26 budget will occur at a later meeting in June once legislative outcomes and updated enrollment figures are available.

The board adjourned at 8:18 p.m.

Ending note: trustees asked staff to return with the requested detail and to schedule follow‑up budget workshops in May so the board can refine a recommended path — whether through deeper cuts, the use of fund balance, or a local revenue measure — ahead of formal adoption.