EPISD budget workshop lays out deficits, school‑closure savings and tradeoffs as trustees weigh reopening options

El Paso Independent School District administrators told trustees on Thursday that their latest budget snapshots show a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall that varies sharply depending on state funding and whether previously closed campuses are reopened.

"When we look at this snapshot ... our shortfall at this point is $17,000,000," said a district presenter summarizing a budget projection that assumes six campus closures carried forward. In a separate scenario that assumes no closures, staff showed a possible shortfall of roughly $31,600,000.

Nut graf: The presentation framed closures as a fiscal strategy to right‑size facilities and maximize classroom allocations. Staff also described how different state basic‑allotment outcomes would alter the district's revenue outlook and flagged a proposed legislative requirement that 40% of any new state money be allocated to compensation.

Key figures and drivers: Staff told trustees the district is currently using an 87.5% ADA (average daily attendance) projection for revenue snapshots—down from an earlier 90% assumption—and explained this more conservative attendance estimate reduced projected revenue. Staff also recapped proposed state basic allotment increases under discussion in Austin and the effect on the district's bottom line: a larger allotment would materially reduce the projected shortfall.

Staff outlined how school closures affect personnel and operating costs. The presentation said eliminating six campuses would remove roughly 279 positions from next year's personnel rolls, producing about $14.5 million in personnel savings in the model presented. Administrators noted some operating savings for vacant buildings are limited because the district still incurs maintenance, utilities, security and insurance costs for unused facilities; they estimated an occupied building's operating and maintenance cost at about $400,000 annually versus about $40,000 for a surplus (vacant) property.

Trustees repeatedly asked for more granular, audit‑ready data comparing budgeted personnel counts to actual expenditures. Trustee lines of questioning focused on the difference between a position eliminated from the budget (position removal) and an operational vacancy filled by temporary or substitute labor. "I think the question is how many FTE positions were vacant last year versus this year," a trustee said, asking for a breakdown of funded versus actually filled positions and the use of temporary contracts.

Surplus properties and one‑time fund balance options: Several trustees asked for the aggregate appraisal values of the district's surplus inventory and how much one‑time revenue would be available from selling those properties. The district said it has 16 properties on the surplus roll that could be sold and noted past sales such as a Northeast tract to Texas Tech produced a multi‑million‑dollar one‑time infusion used previously for a one‑time payout. Staff warned sale proceeds are one‑time revenue that cannot be used for ongoing expenses.

Security, deferred maintenance and capital outlook: Facilities staff gave trustees ballpark figures for capital work that would be required to modernize older campuses: an estimated average of about $10,000,000 per campus to replace or retrofit HVAC systems to refrigerated (centralized) air, additional electrical and control upgrades, and potential roof replacements averaging about $3,000,000 per elementary campus when needed. Trustees asked for a clearer accounting of the long‑term deferred maintenance backlog and the incremental cost of making a closed campus usable again, including safety upgrades (vestibules, panic systems, safety film) estimated at roughly $250,000–$500,000 per campus.

Policy context and timelines: The presentation reiterated the district will build a budget using a conservative baseline (current law basic allotment of $6,160) and said the board must submit any budget recommendations to the superintendent's office by the publicized Friday deadline. Staff outlined remaining board workshops on May 6 and June 3 with a proposed budget adoption on June 18, noting that extended legislative action in Austin could require amendments.

Ending: Trustees asked staff to return with detailed vacancy reconciliation (budgeted vs. actual personnel spending), contract savings tied to outsourced services (for example, stepping‑stone or long‑term substitute contracts), the aggregate appraisal values for surplus properties, and comparisons to peer districts' administrative cost ratios. No formal budget decisions were made at the workshop; staff will bring revised budget scenarios to future board workshops.