Spring ISD previews 2025–26 budget; cautions over HB2 changes, flags $17.8 million baseline deficit

Spring Independent School District officials on April 15 presented a preliminary 2025–26 budget that assumes modest property-value growth but still leaves the district with a multi‑million dollar structural shortfall if state legislative language changes and one‑time revenues prove temporary.

The presentation, led by district finance and staffing staff, laid out revenue estimates, staffing-driven payroll growth and contingent scenarios tied to House Bill 2 (HB2), which at the time of the meeting was scheduled for committee hearings the next day. “I would say it’s pretty much definitely going to change,” said Miss Westbrooks, summarizing ongoing revisions to HB2 and warning trustees to be cautious about committing to raises before revenue is finalized.

Why it matters: Spring ISD faces recurring payroll pressures—driven by enrollment growth, special education staffing and state compensation requirements—while some potential revenue increases identified in HB2 would be offset by statutory spending mandates. Administrators said most additional state funds described in the committee substitute would flow out the door as required compensation increases, leaving limited net revenue to address the district’s structural deficit.

What the district presented - Preliminary enrollment and revenue assumptions: The district’s demographers project enrollment of about 34,160 for 2025–26 (a 1.1% increase on the snapshot date), and staff used a working estimate of a 5% rise in certified property values to model tax revenue. Those assumptions produced a preliminary revenue estimate under current law of about $323.3 million. - Payroll and baseline pressures: Using current staffing guidelines, estimated payroll was roughly $281.1 million—about $4 million higher than 2024–25—because of additional teacher FTEs at elementary campuses, higher special education staffing and expanded ESL allocations. Non‑payroll costs were estimated at about $43.8 million. - One‑time vs. recurring items: The presentation highlighted a proposed “disaster pennies” one‑time tax revenue estimate (conservatively modeled at $15 million rather than $20 million because of a proposed homestead exemption change). Administrators cautioned any decisions that rely on the disaster‑penny revenue, because it is explicitly one‑time in current draft language. - Net position: With the one‑time assumptions included, the district’s estimated change in fund balance was slightly negative, and staff said that stripping one‑time revenues leaves a recurring structural deficit. Staff reported the district entered the fiscal year with about a $13 million deficit and, after the preliminary adjustments, faces an estimated $17.8 million deficit under current law.

Legislative uncertainty and compensation requirements Miss Westbrooks and other staff repeatedly cautioned trustees that draft language in HB2 and related bills was still changing and that revenue numbers could increase or fall. She flagged two parts of the bill with large operational implications: an increase in the basic allotment (partly funded through reallocated revenue called the “golden penny”) and a statutory requirement that districts spend a percentage of new funding on compensation. In the committee substitute discussed, the bill would increase the basic allotment to $6,555, but staff said roughly $55 of that increase is a shift from existing law rather than new money.

She told trustees that the bill’s current draft would require school districts to spend 40% of certain new formula money on compensation. Under the versions the district had modeled, the 40% “spend requirement” could force the district to use nearly all additional funds for payroll, limiting net budget relief. Westbrooks said administrators expected clarifying language about which employee groups would be prioritized for the mandated compensation increases.

Staffing and teacher compensation models Dr. King presented several compensation modeling scenarios and urged caution about committing to raises before final revenue certainty. He gave trustees an example model showing that a general 5% pay increase for teachers and a 4% increase for other staff would cost roughly $13.5 million; a 5%/3% split would cost about $12.5 million. King also noted that any local decisions must align with the statutory or rule requirements tied to state funding.

Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) District staff described recent and pending changes to the district’s Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) program. Doctor King and colleagues explained that TIA awards are tied to growth measures (not simply meeting grade‑level standards) and that the district submitted a renewal and expansion application to TEA, aiming to increase the pool of eligible subjects (music, art, CTE, advanced math and others) pending state approval. King and staff noted that TIA funding is portable with the teacher and that board materials included guidance documents and monitoring plans.

Guest (substitute) teachers: survey and pay proposal Human resources and staffing staff presented a survey of guest employees (substitutes) showing 76 responses (a roughly 20% response rate of about 384 registered substitutes). The survey found that compensation, assignment detail and inconsistent support were leading barriers to accepting assignments. Miss Jamie Lockwood, the district’s manager of guest employees, and Roshanda Griffin, director of staffing and performance designations, joined the presentation.

Staff proposed a multi‑part approach to improve fill rates: increase base substitute pay to be competitive with neighboring districts, differentiate pay by role (e.g., principals, counselors, nurses), and offer monthly incentives—$300 for substitute teachers who work 15 full days in a month and $200 for paraprofessionals meeting the same threshold. The administration estimated an approximate recurring budgetary impact (reflecting current substitute usage) but said numbers would be refined; the proposal did not have a board vote that night.

Questions from trustees and next steps Trustees pressed staff on assumptions (HCAD timelines for certified values, the bases for enrollment projections and the robustness of revenue estimates). Several trustees requested exemplar districts showing lower payroll percentages for comparison and asked staff to provide more district‑by‑district benchmarking. Staff said they would return with more detailed line‑item department books in May and reiterated that final budget adoption would follow the conclusion of the legislative session.

What trustees were told to expect next Administrators told trustees the district would circulate detailed department budgets in May, continue to model multiple HB2 scenarios as text evolves, and return in subsequent budget reviews through the fiscal year (fall, winter and year‑end) as numbers firmed up.

Speakers - Miss Westbrooks, staff member (legislative/finance update) - Doctor Shaka King, staff member (compensation and substitutes) - Doctor Lupita Henahosa, staff member (introductory remarks) - Jamie Lockwood, Manager of Guest Employees (guest‑teacher survey) - Roshanda Griffin, Director of Staffing and Performance Designations - Trustee Durant (Board president) - Trustee Adams (Trustee) - Trustee Jensen (Trustee) - Trustee Newhouse (Trustee) - Trustee Correa (Trustee)

Clarifying details - Projected enrollment for 2025–26: 34,160 (about +1.1% from snapshot) - Working assumption for certified property‑value growth: +5% (final HCAD numbers due April 30) - Preliminary revenue (current law): ≈ $323.3 million - Estimated baseline payroll (current staffing guidelines): ≈ $281.1 million - Estimated non‑payroll expenditures: ≈ $43.8 million - One‑time “disaster pennies” revenue modeled conservatively: $15,000,000 (administrators said $15M used due to increased homestead exemption risk) - Estimated recurring structural deficit (after modeling changes): $17,800,000 (staff described this as a baseline shortfall to be addressed)

Community relevance - Geography: District‑wide (Spring ISD) - Impact groups: teachers, substitutes, special education staff, ESL students, elementary students (where staffing increases were concentrated)

Provenance - topicintro: transcript block starting 355.225: "Thank you. Our next let me state for the record that trustee Correa has joined us at 06:06PM. Our next item is our budget preparation discussion for the 2526 budget. At this time, I'd like to turn it over to doctor Lupita Henahosa for a brief overview..." - topfinish: transcript block starting 5759.89: "Great job. Thank you, everyone. We'll go ahead and take a 5 minute break at this time. Yeah. Okay, everybody."