Humble ISD outlines $25–26 budget plan with teacher raises, health‑plan adjustments and targeted equity pay

Mister Billy Beatty, presenting the district's budget recommendation, told the Humble Independent School District board at a June 3 special meeting that the district expects roughly $26,000,000 in “new money” for 2025–26 from the recently passed House Bill 2 and is proposing a two‑year plan that uses that revenue to increase pay and fund services.

“It is the primary source of new revenue that we're looking at,” Beatty said. “One of the biggest items ... is a teacher retention allocation that teachers with 3 or 4 years of experience will receive $2,500, and teachers with 5 or more years experience will receive $5,000.” That state allocation, he added, produces about a 7% average increase for classroom teachers next year and will cost the district roughly $14,100,000 after payroll costs.

The presentation laid out why the district is treating teachers and non‑teachers differently. The district plans a 3% across‑the‑board raise for staff not categorized as classroom teachers and additional “equity adjustments” for specific job classes that have fallen behind the market.

Nut graf: The workshop — informational only; the board will vote on a final budget June 17 — offered a draft spending plan that combines one‑time purchases with recurring raises while preserving fund‑balance capacity. Staff said the package balances new state money, recurring costs and planned use of fund balance so Humble ISD can operate for the second year of the two‑year state biennium.

Key elements and discussion points

- Revenue and timing: Beatty said House Bill 2 provides an estimated $26,000,000 in new funding for 2025–26, with about $2,300,000 expected in 2026–27. He cautioned that a number of bills were still awaiting the governor’s signature and that the district is planning on a two‑year horizon because state funding is set for the biennium.

- Teacher pay: Under the state formula staff described, classroom teachers coded under the state classification would receive either $2,500 (teachers with three to four years) or $5,000 (five or more years). Beatty said, “that ends up being about a 7% raise for teachers next year.” Rick Gardner, who led the compensation discussion, said the district modeled alternative scenarios and is recommending the plan that uses the state allocation plus a modest district contribution to maximize retention without creating an unsustainable recurring burden.

- Non‑teacher pay and market fixes: The district proposes a 3% general increase for non‑teacher staff and targeted “midpoint” adjustments for hard‑to‑fill or below‑market job families. Gardner highlighted several hot spots and proposed larger lifts where market data show Humble ISD trailing peers: special‑education paraprofessionals and specialized skilled paras (proposed 8% increase), child‑nutrition workers (proposed 8% with a $14/hour entry), custodial and skilled trades (8%), and police nonexempt staff (11% for officers, 6% for senior officers) to improve competitiveness in a tight market.

- Health plan changes: Beatty said the district recommends a $1,000,000 employer increase in health‑plan funding and a modest employee premium increase. He gave an example for the primary plan: “for an employee only … is a $20 a month increase.” Staff emphasized the district’s self‑funded plan remains “richer” than many alternatives and that changes are aimed at stabilizing plan funding.

- Special education and operations: The draft budget includes roughly $2,000,000 in additional special‑education staffing (health services positions, assessment staff, 14 special‑education teachers, dyslexia supports and assessment software). The district also proposed funding to open Lake Houston Middle School (about $4,000,000 one‑time cost and roughly 82 staff positions listed) and recommended several one‑time operational items drawn from fund balance for maintenance, uniform replacement, vehicles and a technology warehouse lease tied to a bond device‑replacement program.

- Fund balance and multi‑year risk: Beatty repeatedly urged caution on using fund balance to pay recurring costs. He projected the district would retain about $55,000,000 assigned fund balance by year end (above the board’s 25% policy minimum) even if one‑time items are approved, but said using reserves for recurring pay increases reduces flexibility in 2026–27 when fewer state dollars are guaranteed.

Board members pressed staff on several points. Trustee Scarfo asked what happens in the second year when teacher‑retention allocations are not repeated; Beatty replied that staff had a slide showing the district must generate the second‑year increment from within local resources and that the district’s plan preserves some capacity for 2026–27. Trustee Holmes and others asked whether non‑teacher groups (librarians, nurses, counselors, paras and cafeteria staff) could receive larger increases; staff said they considered alternatives but recommended the 3% baseline plus targeted equity moves so the district would retain capacity for the second year.

Teacher Incentive Allotment and targeted bonuses

Board members discussed expanding the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA). Gardner and other staff described the program as a state‑administered performance allotment with rules about which positions qualify. A board member suggested adding all self‑contained special‑education classroom teachers to the district's TIA cohort; staff said they are willing to analyze operational details and any TEA approval requirements and return with cost estimates.

Health‑plan details and employee experience

Administrators defended the district's health plan design and said participation has grown sharply (from roughly 35% to above 80%), increasing costs and the district’s reliance on fund balance in earlier years. Staff described care pathways (Patients' Choice, imaging and certain outpatient procedures at no cost under the primary plan) and new pharmacy options and wellness programs. They said the proposed premium increase is intended to stabilize the plan rather than reduce benefits.

What’s next

Beatty and Gardner said the presentation is a working set of proposals. The board will consider a formal budget adoption at its June 17 meeting. Staff will return with any updated numbers after final legislative action and after further review of hot‑spot equity adjustments; they will also provide cost estimates for any requested additional changes, such as police retention or expanded TIA cohorts.

Ending: The workshop was informational; no final budget vote occurred at the June 3 meeting. Staff recommended public adoption on June 17, pending final legislative outcomes and any board direction at the intervening meetings.