College Station ISD charts budget cuts, warns state funding changes could force staff reductions

Miss Wilson, a district finance official, told the College Station Independent School District Board of Trustees on April 15 that proposed changes at the Texas Legislature and declining student numbers have combined to tighten the district’s budget outlook and could force personnel adjustments if state funding does not change.

The presentation, delivered during the board’s workshop, laid out legislative proposals under consideration — including Senate Bill 26 and a committee substitute for House Bill 2 — and internal staffing scenarios the district is preparing should current funding formulas remain in place.

Miss Wilson said increases proposed in the House substitute would raise the state basic allotment and shift some funding formulas, while other proposed measures aim to increase special education and bilingual allotments. "When you increase the basic allotment, of course, that helps the district," she said, adding that changes to the so-called "golden penny yield" and hold-harmless calculations could remove a small inflationary revenue source the district currently counts on.

Why this matters: CSISD receives most operating revenue through state formulas tied to student counts and specific program allotments rather than local property tax growth. Miss Wilson told trustees the district currently spends more than it receives from the state for several services: about $5.4 million more than state allocations when program intent is reallocated, roughly $4.1 million more on transportation than the state provides, $1.7 million beyond the state safety allotment (SROs and security staff), about $958,000 more for gifted-and-talented services, and approximately $430,000 more in bilingual education than state funding covers.

Enrollment and staffing: The district had expected to gain 19 students this school year but was down 48, Miss Wilson said; the demographer projects a further loss of 66 students. Because state funding is pupil-based, the district cannot count on local property value increases to raise operating revenue. "We kinda have to live within our means. We don't get any extra money because property taxes are going up," she said.

CSISD staff outlined staffing scenarios tied to class-size targets. Under current practice (22 students per teacher at elementary), the district could absorb seven positions through attrition without exceeding the 22:1 target. Raising some elementary classes to 23:1 would allow the district to absorb additional positions (Miss Wilson presented scenarios ranging from four to 13 positions depending on which grades or campus efficiencies were adjusted). The district emphasized any reductions would be handled by attrition: "We're not cutting any teacher positions. Every one of these would be by attrition," Miss Wilson said.

Costs and inflation pressures: Trustees heard that since February 2019 the district has absorbed significant inflation in employee compensation and operations — Miss Wilson said staff compensation rose about 26.6% overall, employer health‑insurance costs have increased, fuel is up 49% and utilities about 16% since 2019. Payroll accounts for about 83% of general fund expenditures. CSISD’s unassigned fund balance was cited as roughly $38 million and the district reported about 3.44 months of operating fund balance; administrators noted that while the dollar balance has grown, it should be viewed relative to the overall budget.

Legislative items under watch: Miss Wilson summarized proposals under active consideration at the Capitol: increases to the basic allotment, modifications to the golden penny yield, potential increases in special education funding, an expanded bilingual allotment and a proposed fine-arts allotment, increases in campuses’ safety grant amounts, and measures creating education savings account (ESA) style transfers and open enrollment/"capacity" rules that could allow students to enroll across district lines if a campus is deemed to have available seats. On ESAs and open-enrollment language Miss Wilson said the bills did not yet define how "capacity" would be measured and cautioned that allowing student moves based solely on a single open seat could create downstream resource and class-size issues.

Next steps and timeline: District staff told trustees they will finalize staffing models and present a near-complete budget under current law at the May meeting, with additional department- and secondary-school scenarios in May and June. The board was told a special meeting may be needed in late June or early July to adopt a budget prior to July 1 if the Legislature’s final actions arrive late; any new state monies received after adoption would permit a later amendment. Miss Wilson and trustees stressed the timing risk for recruitment and staffing if local decisions are delayed.

Board questions and context: Trustees asked for comparisons and for total-compensation data that include benefits; Miss Wilson said she would provide combined salary/benefit comparisons in a future presentation. Trustees also raised concerns about the state proposals that would limit bond election timing and restrict local control over debt defeasance and tax-rate decisions.

The board did not vote on any budget actions at the April 15 workshop; staff said they would return with refined figures and recommended staffing models in May.