Leander ISD trustees weigh raising budget parameter and a November tax vote to close projected shortfalls
Loading...
Summary
At a budget workshop, Leander ISD staff outlined a roughly $12.2 million 2025–26 deficit projection, proposed a 3% budget parameter (creating about $6.8M capacity) or alternative payroll budgeting to bridge gaps, and described a possible November 2026 voter‑approval tax election that could net the district about $6.5M after recapture.
Leander ISD board members spent the bulk of an evening workshop reviewing the district’s finances and options to close a mid‑year shortfall.
Gina, the district presenter on 25–26 projections, told trustees that a recent Texas Education Agency change to an over‑65 formula calculation reduced Leander ISD’s expected revenue by “about $3,000,000,” a swing that helped leave the district projecting roughly a $12,200,000 deficit for 2025–26 even after other adjustments. Gina said the district had trimmed that gap from a higher January projection by incorporating expenditure savings and one‑time receipts but warned the outlook remained volatile as state formulas and appeals evolve.
The staff presented two principal approaches for the 2026–27 budget. One option is to change the board’s budget parameter from the current 1.5% to 3%; administration estimated that would create about $6,800,000 in capacity for the coming year. The other option would be to budget payroll at 97% rather than 98%, which administration estimated would create roughly $4,000,000 in capacity.
“Budgeting payroll at 97% … creates capacity of about $4,000,000,” the presenter said, noting both approaches involve tradeoffs. Staff repeatedly cautioned that using recurring capacity for recurring pay increases risks creating deficits in later years without stable new revenue.
Pete, who led the policy and revenue discussion, described a parallel option: a voter‑approval tax rate election in November 2026 to increase the M&O tax rate by up to 3¢. Pete said the district would collect about $13,000,000 in gross revenue but, because of recapture, would likely keep roughly $6,500,000 in net recurring revenue.
“If the VADER were to pass, our rate would go up 3¢, and we'd be able to keep that $6,500,000,” Pete said, explaining statutory timelines and procedural steps (efficiency audit selection by a July deadline, required notices and published audit results before the election). He emphasized the district would need to choose whether to use any new revenue for one‑time payments, recurring compensation, or other priorities, and to avoid committing recurring dollars until the district was certain of the legal and fiscal environment.
Board members pressed staff for clarifications: several asked how much of the administration’s revenue package was already built into 26–27 (open enrollment and other marketing gains were not), how proposed payroll parameters would be monitored, and how recurring vs. one‑time uses would affect the 3‑ to 5‑year outlook.
Administration said it will return the options to the board on the April 2 agenda with both scenarios (retain 1.5% vs revise to 3%, and payroll at 97% vs 98%) so trustees can set the district’s assumptions ahead of formal budget adoption steps in May and the public hearing on June 18.
Action on the consent agenda was recorded at the start of the meeting: a motion to approve the consent agenda passed with a recorded vote of five ayes.
What’s next: staff will present the revised budget assumption(s) for board action in April, continue work on compensation and health insurance presentations, and keep the board informed of TEA and appraisal‑district developments that influence revenue. If trustees decide to pursue a voter‑approval election, staff outlined procedural deadlines in July–October that would determine whether a November 2026 election is feasible.
