College Station ISD trustees review 2025–26 budget, weigh district-funded raises after HB2 changes

College Station ISD trustees met in a special workshop on June 6, 2025, to review the district’s proposed 2025–26 budget and the local effects of recent state legislation. Heather Wilson, the district’s chief financial officer, briefed trustees on changes in state funding formulas, new allotments in House Bill 2, and budget options for staff compensation.

The legislative changes included a $55 increase in the basic allotment and a new $106 “ABC” allotment tied to enrolled students. Wilson said, “This allotment right here brings about 1,516,000 in that ballpark. It's based on enrolled student.” She told trustees the ABC allotment may be used for transportation, employee health insurance, retirement and benefits, and some property-and-casualty insurance costs.

Why it matters: HB2 and related changes rework the state funding formula that districts rely on. Some increases are restricted by purpose or eligibility; in other cases the state removed prior spending requirements. Trustees said the district must decide whether to apply HB2 teacher-retention payments only to classroom teachers defined under Texas Education Code §5.001 or to extend similar increases to other staff who work directly with students.

Key funding and legislative points presented

- Basic allotment: +$55 per student; Wilson and staff noted the increase does not cover several cost pressures once other formula changes are applied. - ABC allotment: $106 per enrolled student, estimated to bring roughly $1.516 million to the district; Wilson cautioned that recent property-and-casualty cost increases mean much of that revenue is already committed. - Teacher retention allotment (HB2): provides $2,500 for teachers with three to four years’ experience and $5,000 for teachers with five or more years. Eligibility depends on the TEC §5.001 definition of “classroom teacher” and on PEIMS coding; Wilson said some positions the district expected to qualify were listed as nonapplicable in the TEA file used to run legislative estimates. - Other allotments and changes: special education allotment increases (longer-term implementation), $1,000 reimbursements for special-education evaluations (the language does not require the child be enrolled in the district), a safety allotment increased to $33,540 per campus, and changes to early-education funding that may reallocate money statewide based on pre-K counts (district estimate: roughly $221,000 retained after reallocation).

Budget adjustments and staffing

Wilson described a year-long review of departments and campus budgets intended to reallocate centrally held funds back to campuses and to reduce duplicate budgets. The district reported savings by centralizing certain costs (insurance, attorney fees) and by trimming supplies and contracted services where coding or spending was excessive. Wilson said campuses received baseline increases even though total enrollment fell and cited a net staffing reduction where enrollment declines made positions inefficient: “By keeping those ratios 22 to 1, we were able to reduce 7 teachers,” she said. Several special-education positions added this year were described as mandated by minutes of service and therefore not optional.

Compensation scenarios and board sentiment

Wilson presented modeled effects of different raise packages on the district’s projected surplus/deficit. With the district’s current estimate of available funds (a projected fund-balance infusion of roughly $6 million at year-end and an unassigned fund balance near $38 million), the models showed approximate budget impacts if the district funded raises beyond HB2’s direct allocations:

- 2% across-the-board: roughly a $1.1 million deficit - 3%: roughly a $1.6 million deficit - 4%: roughly a $2.1 million deficit - 5%: roughly a $2.6 million deficit

Trustees discussed two broad approaches: (1) apply HB2 money only to staff whom the law specifically designates (creating multiple pay scales) or (2) use district funds to extend equivalent raises to everyone on the teacher pay scale and other staff who work directly with students. Several trustees expressed support for the second option. Dr. John Harkrider, the superintendent, and multiple trustees argued that many employees excluded by HB2 nevertheless ‘‘work with kids’’ and that extending raises to those employees would aid retention and competitiveness, particularly with voucher programs and private-school competition anticipated to expand in 2026–27.

Board direction and next steps

Trustees did not take a final vote on the compensation schedule at the workshop. They directed staff to:

- apply proposed raise scenarios to the 2025–26 budget and rerun the numbers in the accounting system; - re-audit staffing and finalize any required position reallocations; and - present updated budget and compensation figures at the June board meeting (staff indicated Tuesday night and June 17 were target dates) and to return with a recommended compensation scale for board action.

Wilson said the district will not adopt a tax rate in June; tax-rate action is scheduled for August and will depend on certified property values and TEA calculations. She reiterated that some allotments and eligibility rules remain subject to TEA interpretation and that the district’s final figures could change after state guidance and certified values arrive.

What was not decided

There was no formal vote to adopt a final compensation plan or to commit a specific portion of fund balance to recurring raises. Trustees acknowledged that using fund balance to cover a multi-year deficit carries risk and that future legislative sessions could change funding again.

Ending

District staff return to the board with recalculated budget scenarios and a recommended compensation scale. Trustees signaled a preference for a single, district-funded approach that extends raises beyond HB2’s specified recipients but did not adopt a final plan at the workshop.