College Station ISD finance staff outline budget scenarios as state teacher-pay proposal shifts funding; board to consider cuts and raises in June

At a May 20 workshop College Station ISD business staff presented the district’s preliminary 2025–26 general fund budget and a range of deficit scenarios tied to pending state legislation affecting teacher compensation and formula funding.

Miss Wilson led the budget segment and outlined the legislative timeline: the House and Senate must reconcile bills before the governor’s June 22 signature deadline. She described the contents of the committee substitute to House Bill 2 (CSHB 2), which the presentation said would dedicate large new state sums to teacher compensation through separate allotments rather than raising the basic allotment substantially.

Miss Wilson told trustees that the committee substitute placed roughly $8 billion into education but that most of the designated funding targets classroom-teacher compensation and other specified allotments. The presentation listed core effects for the district: a $55 increase in the basic allotment (to a per‑student basic allotment figure reported in the slides), a teacher‑retention allotment that provides $2,500 for teachers with three to four years’ experience and $5,500 for teachers with five-plus years, and other targeted allotments (special education changes to an intensity-based formula, increased special-education evaluation funding, transportation-per-mile adjustments, expanded dyslexia and CTE allotments and a teacher incentive allotment tied to local growth measures).

Wilson ran district-level scenarios. Using the most recent enrollment and tax information the presentation estimated that under current law the district would face a roughly $3.3 million deficit. Under the CSHB 2 scenario the slides projected the district’s revenue and expenditures narrowing to an approximate $1.9 million deficit before any locally adopted additional raises. If the board were to add raises beyond the state-designated classroom-teacher allotments, the presentation showed multiple options and their fiscal effects: for example, a plan that applied a 1.5% raise to district employees not covered by the state classroom-teacher allotment combined with the state classroom raises produced an estimated deficit of about $2.78 million; a district-wide 2% raise produced larger deficits in the $3.0–$3.5 million range depending on the model. (Miss Wilson said the exact dollar figures will depend on final legislation and final PEIMS reporting of which employees qualify under state definitions.)

Wilson noted costs the district would carry even if the state provided classroom raises: retiree/TRS-related employer costs on state-provided salary increases are not fully covered in the bill’s allotment and thus would be an additional local expenditure (the presentation listed an example $489,000 estimate covering TRS-related employer costs for the district’s portion of the teacher-retention allotment). The slides also called out an estimated $4.18 million in state-allocated amounts for classroom teachers in the qualifying ranges and noted that many other staff categories (nurses, librarians, instructional coaches, counselors, ESL teachers) are not automatically included in the targeted state allotment unless the district elects local changes — adding those positions into the state-eligible pool would carry additional local costs estimated in the slides (for example, adding non‑classroom staff to the same raise program was shown as roughly $655,000 in additional local cost in the presenter’s calculation).

Miss Wilson described special-education funding changes as one of the more meaningful shifts: the presentation said special education would move toward an intensity-based formula and that the change could increase the district’s special-education allotment over time, though the slide deck warned that initial biennium increases would be modest and larger effects would appear in later biennia. She also said the transportation allotment per mile would increase and that the district estimated roughly an $18,000 net increase in transportation funding under the proposed changes.

Board members asked how targeted state funding would be distributed locally (teacher incentive allotment mechanics) and how many district staff would qualify for state-funded raises. Miss Wilson said the district is working to identify eligible assignments and to expand valid student-growth measures to allow more teachers to participate in the teacher incentive allotment where state rules permit. She recommended continued board engagement and said staff would return with updated figures if the Legislature finalizes bills.

Why this matters: the board must adopt a 2025–26 budget under uncertain state funding rules. The district faces trade-offs between using one-time fund balance and making recurring payroll decisions that affect staffing and operations. Miss Wilson told trustees staff have identified roughly $2.3 million in expenditure reductions already and will continue reviewing line-by-line budgets and staffing models as legislative outcomes become clearer.

What’s next: staff recommended a focused June budget workshop after legislation is final so trustees can adopt salary decisions and the final budget at the board meeting scheduled in mid-June. Miss Wilson told the board she expects to present more detailed staffing and expenditure lists at that workshop.

Ending: trustees discussed outreach to state lawmakers; staff encouraged board members to continue communicating the district’s funding concerns to legislators while staff finalize budget options for the June meeting.