Belton ISD outlines three-phase plan to cut $8–9 million from operating budget

Dr. Golden, superintendent of Belton Independent School District, told trustees at a Jan. 27 workshop that the district faces a projected operating shortfall and presented a three‑phase plan to reduce about $8 million to $9 million in expenditures for the 2025–26 budget.

The superintendent framed the plan around declines in average daily attendance funding, rising special education and insurance costs, and other pressures. “We knew we had adopted a $5,000,000 deficit budget,” Dr. Golden said, noting the district later adopted an $8,100,000 deficit and has worked to reduce expenditures. The presentation emphasized the district’s board policy to maintain a 21–25% fund balance and warned that, without reductions or additional state funding, projected fund balance would fall below that floor.

Why it matters: Belton ISD’s operating cash is used to meet payroll and daily operations; the district’s presenters said falling average daily attendance (ADA), rising health and liability insurance, higher transportation costs and a drop in federal Medicaid reimbursements together have eroded reserves. The presentation estimated that a 1 percentage‑point change in ADA represents roughly $1 million in revenue for the district.

Key drivers and recent actions - Enrollment and attendance: The district reported volatile enrollment since the pandemic; presenters said ADA did not meet prior projections and that ADA was kept flat in the district’s 2025–26 baseline projection (projected ADA cited at 12,788 in staff materials). District staff warned large swings in ADA affect state funding. - Special education and staffing: Staff reported a sustained increase in the share of students receiving special education services and said the district added roughly $2 million in special‑education staffing after other reductions. Presenters noted Texas’ weighted funding for special education has not kept pace with the district’s increased costs. - Rising costs and lost revenue: Speakers cited higher utility and insurance costs (presenters referenced about $1.5 million in increased liability/medical insurance) and a district estimate of a $1.0–$1.3 million reduction in federal Medicaid reimbursement that arrived as an unexpected cut. Transportation costs and driver vacancies (the district said it was down 12 bus drivers) also were cited. - One‑time and federal relief funds: The presentation noted the district used ESSER funds to hold class sizes lower after the pandemic; those funds are tapering.

Advisory process and timeline District staff described a budget advisory committee convened last fall to generate and score ideas. The superintendent said the committee had roughly 71 members with attendance ranging from about 65% to 80% across meetings and a membership mix the district described as roughly 24% parents/community, 14% students and 62% staff. The committee scored proposed measures on three lenses: impact toward savings goals, classroom impact and long‑term financial sustainability. Staff said they collected and tabulated individual score sheets from each member.

Phased reduction plan (what staff proposed) - Phase 1 (immediate assumptions for 2025–26 budgeting): Evaluate position vacancies before hiring; align to current BISD staffing guidelines by increasing secondary staffing ratios (presenters proposed moving from 26:1 to 28:1 for secondary classrooms); further reduce local campus and department budgets (including a 50% reduction in most adult professional travel); another central office staffing reduction (staff described prior 6% reductions in the last two years and proposed an additional 6%); energy‑conservation measures and program reviews (including program evaluations of special education services and the learning management system Schoology); reduce substitute costs for professional development; and scale back summer enrichment programs (staff estimated summer‑enrichment reductions would save approximately $5,000,000). Staff emphasized these moves would be implemented through attrition, not through a reduction in force. “We believe we can do this through attrition,” Dr. Golden said. - Phase 2 (hold until the end of March to allow the legislative session to clarify state funding): Staff proposed work to restructure health services (in part by hiring more LVNs as vacancies occur), reduce four positions in library services, and reduce some high‑school coaching positions or adjust coaching assignments; staff estimated Phase 2 actions could save about $800,000 to $1,000,000 if implemented. - Phase 3 (contingent on March legislative outcome; implementation in 2026–27 if needed): Further restructuring of library services and interventionist staffing, and reductions to instructional coaches. Staff said Phase 3 would be developed in detail only if state funding does not materially improve.

Staff repeatedly emphasized a preference to implement changes by attrition rather than formal layoffs. They told trustees a reduction in force (financial exigency) was not recommended. Staff also said they will explore outsourcing custodial and transportation services as an option to evaluate potential savings but have not recommended that step and would return with RFP results and analyses before any change.

Legislative uncertainty and next steps Presenters used several state funding “what‑if” scenarios in the slide deck (illustrating hypothetical increases to the basic allotment of $500, $700 or $900 per student) and told the board those outcomes would materially change the district’s projected fund‑balance position. Staff asked the board to insert Phase 1 assumptions into the 2025–26 budget now and to delay Phase 2 and Phase 3 decisions until after mid‑March, when many legislative filing deadlines pass and lawmakers’ likely actions will be clearer. Staff said the district will convene work groups (librarians, athletics coordinators, health services leaders and principals) over the next weeks and will report models and recommendations to the board in March if needed.

What the board did and did not do The workshop was informational: trustees did not take a formal vote on the Phase 1–3 proposals during the meeting. Staff said the board previously approved the charter forming the budget advisory committee; the workshop was presented as an update and to seek direction for incorporating Phase 1 assumptions into the 2025–26 budget process.

Context and community notes Staff highlighted academic and extracurricular achievements alongside the budget conversation: multiple campuses earned purple‑star designations, the district reported growing Career and Technical Education recognition, and staff cited AP scholars, industry certifications and volunteer participation. Presenters framed the budget work as an effort to preserve classroom services while responding to funding pressures.

Looking ahead, district staff will continue to refine Phase 1 implementation details, assemble working committees for Phase 2 options, and return to the board with specific models and any necessary personnel implications in March or later depending on the legislative calendar.