Goose Creek CISD reviews budget scenarios, weighs compensation options as school finance bill advances

Goose Creek CISD trustees received an update April 7 on district budget scenarios and employee compensation models tied to a pending state school finance measure, commonly referred to in the presentation as House Bill 2. District staff told the board the bill is moving through the Legislature but is not yet law, and that preliminary modeling shows the district could see roughly $16,000,000 in additional state revenue if the bill becomes final.

The update matters because, as staff described, the bill in its current form would increase the district's basic allotment and require a set share of any gain to be spent on employee pay. District staff presented calculations showing that 40% of any state funding gain must be used for salary increases (about $6,400,000 of the $16,000,000 example). Of that 40%, staff said 75% would have to be allocated specifically to teachers, nurses and librarians (about $4,800,000) and 25% to other nonadministrator positions (about $1,600,000).

Board members were shown three budget scenarios used for planning: (a) a baseline scenario based on current law, (b) a production/budget plan that the board previously directed staff to pursue, and (c) an illustrative scenario that incorporates the House Bill 2 revenue assumptions. Under the production plan without additional state funding, staff said the district would face a roughly $2.4 million deficit for 2025-26. If the illustrative bill passed as shown, staff said the district's fund balance could increase materially (staff cited an end-of-year fund balance of about $89,000,000 under current assumptions and said the bill could buoy that balance in illustrative scenarios toward $200,000,000).

Given the uncertainty about final legislation and the bill's timing, staff warned of a specific risk: approving a local compensation plan before the Legislature and governor finalize the bill could require the district later to increase pay again to meet statutory minimums. Staff gave an example in which a locally approved 2% raise combined with the bill's requirement (a hypothetical 4.5% for teachers, nurses and librarians in the bill's current form) could result in a combined increase larger than intended. To avoid that outcome, staff recommended delaying formal approval of the district compensation plan until the district has greater certainty about state action, with staff naming the board's June 2 meeting as the target for approval if the Legislature has not acted earlier.

Staff also presented four compensation models and their estimated district costs: a 2% across-the-board raise (presented cost: about $4,100,000), a 3% option (about $6,000,000), a 4% option (about $7,900,000 total), and a 4.5% model focused on meeting the illustrative statutory requirement for teachers, nurses and librarians (staff cited roughly $4,900,000 directed at those groups under that model). Staff said they would return with refined numbers and options that could mix targeted equity adjustments with a base raise.

No formal board vote on a compensation plan took place during the April 7 discussion. Trustees asked questions about timing, the components of the scenarios and market comparisons for pay; staff said they would return with more refined recommendations at future budget update meetings. The board meeting calendar presented by staff included a follow-up budget update on May 6 and a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 16 under the district's fiscal calendar.

Notes: the presentation and figures were labeled illustrative and contingent on legislative action; staff repeatedly emphasized the preliminary nature of the numbers and that the bill had multiple stages to clear before becoming law.