ARLINGTON ISD trustees workshop focuses on deficit reduction, staffing and 0‑based budgeting

At a workshop on budget development parameters, Arlington ISD trustees heard staff present a three‑year plan to reduce the district’s projected deficit by one‑third while maintaining a 25% fund balance, staff said.

The plan centers on three strategic performance measures adopted in October: a 33% deficit reduction target over three years, maintaining fund balance at 25% of operating costs and budgeting classroom-related functions 11–13 at about 60% of total expenditures, the district presenter (Speaker 3) told trustees.

Why it matters: enrollment has fallen markedly since 2019 — from just under 60,000 students to under 51,000 now — shrinking state basic‑allotment revenue the district uses to fund operations. That enrollment decline, combined with the end of federal pandemic funds that previously supported wraparound services, means staff recommended multiple revenue and expenditure levers be considered as parameters for the coming budget cycle.

What staff presented: Speaker 3 laid out high‑level inputs and outputs for the budget and described three projection options for enrollment (high: 49,900; mid: 49,700; low: 49,000) to be used when setting parameters. The presenter said the district’s current fund balance is about $264,000,000, with an estimated year‑end balance near $251,000,000, and identified a 25% fund‑balance target tied to local policy (approximately $171,000,000).

Speaker 3 described several tools to close the gap, including 0‑based budgeting, reviewing and potentially invalidating long‑standing vacancies, evaluating class schedules and low‑enrollment courses, and targeting pay adjustments rather than across‑the‑board increases. He also noted bond authority and reserves as separate variables the board controls.

On staffing, staff recalled a prior accountability indicator that used a staff‑to‑student ratio (a 7–14 range) that was removed in 2014. Speaker 3 said the district’s current ratio is roughly one staff member per six students and observed that moving toward a 7:1 ratio would affect headcount and savings, but that exact figures depend on which positions change. When asked for a precise dollar amount, Speaker 3 said he would "follow up with the board" and provide exact numbers.

Trustee feedback: During table breakouts trustees repeatedly prioritized 0‑based budgeting, evaluating vacancies, and careful review of student‑teacher ratios or caps to limit negative impacts on students. Several trustee groups advocated protecting market‑competitive salaries; others emphasized maximizing federal and categorical funding and reviewing district transportation and facility utilization as ways to reduce costs.

Notable trustee comments included a call to consider open enrollment strategies to stabilize enrollment. Trustee (Speaker 6) said, "Our doors should be open wide, and we should accept students and enroll students because that frankly, that's what other districts are doing around us." Several trustees also recommended a long‑range facilities plan and attention to contract redundancies.

Next steps: Staff said the parameters presented are intended as a starting point for the formal budget development process and that the board will be asked to adopt parameters in a future public meeting. The public workshop recessed at 6:03 p.m. and the board moved to a closed session citing statutory sections read aloud in the meeting.

(Quotes in this article are attributed to participants by their speaker labels as recorded in the workshop transcript.)