College Station ISD reviews legislative changes and 2025–26 budget options, board signals support for single pay scale

College Station ISD staff on June 6 briefed the board of trustees on major 2025 legislative changes and how those changes shape the district's proposed 2025—26 budget and compensation options.

Heather Wilson, the staff presenter, said the Legislature's action in House Bill 2 increased the basic allotment by $55 and added a new per-student allotment officials are calling the ABC allotment. "This brings about a million 5 to our school district," Wilson said about the $106-per-enrolled-student allotment intended to help pay for transportation, employee health insurance, retirement and benefits, and property and casualty insurance. She cautioned, however, that some newly designated allotments largely cover existing cost increases rather than providing entirely new discretionary funds.

The presentation summarized several legislative changes that could affect the district's finances and operations: the Legislature froze the district's guaranteed yield and moved some funding into the basic allotment formula; the previous requirement that a share of any basic-allotment increase be spent on salaries was repealed; a teacher retention allotment was created that provides $2,500 for teachers with three to four years of experience and $5,000 for teachers with five or more years (as implemented under Texas Education Code Sec. 5.001, Wilson said); and the safety allotment per campus increased to $33,540. Wilson also said special-education funding changes will be phased in later (budgeting effects expected in 2026—27) and that prekindergarten rules and the state's reallocation of early-education funds will require close monitoring.

Wilson reviewed how the district built the proposed 2025—26 budget: redistributing many central-office-held dollars back to campuses, reestablishing staffing models, and recoding some expenditures (for example, moving certain software costs from supplies to contracted services). She said staff reduced supply budgets and centralized insurance and legal-fee accounts to avoid duplicated or scattered line items. Enrollment declines were cited as a driver of efficiency changes; Wilson said campus budgets were increased overall even though enrollment decreased.

On compensation, district staff modeled several scenarios. Using staff's numbers, a 5% across-the-board raise (or a plan that treats all employees on the teacher pay scale equally and funds the full $2,500/$5,000 retention allotment as applicable) would produce an estimated deficit of roughly $2.6 million. Staff noted the district ended the year with a total fund balance around $43.9 million and an unassigned balance of about $38 million; Wilson told trustees she expected a one-time infusion of roughly $6 million this year that would increase available fund balance.

Trustees discussed two approaches: (1) apply the state's retention allotment only to positions that meet the statutory classroom definition, then give smaller percentage raises to others, creating two pay scales; or (2) use district funds to give the same retention payment or comparable increases to all staff on the teacher pay scale (including some positions not explicitly covered by the state run used to compute the allotment). Several trustees expressed support for a single, district-wide approach to avoid creating a perceived inequity among staff; no formal vote was taken. Wilson said the board would be asked to approve a compensation schedule in mid-June and to adopt the budget before the district's July 1 campus-level deadlines.

District staff laid out next steps: apply trustee direction to the accounting model, rerun projections in the district's financial system, present a compensation schedule for board action at the next meeting, and return a final recommended budget. Wilson noted that some allotments labeled "permanent" could be changed in future sessions and that the district must plan for uncertainty in 2027 and beyond.

Why it matters: trustees' choice on whether to equalize raises across all staff on the teacher pay scale affects recruitment and retention, how the district spends some new state allotments, and whether the district uses fund balance to cover a near-term deficit. Several trustees emphasized competitiveness with neighboring districts and the potential impact of forthcoming policy changes such as parental choice or voucher proposals that staff and trustees said could increase local competition for students and staff.

Trustees, staff and other contributors to the discussion included Heather Wilson (presenter), Dr. John Harkrider (superintendent), Board President Mister Horak, and board members who asked clarifying questions and commented during the workshop. The board did not take a final budget vote at the June 6 workshop.