Austin ISD trustees lean toward 15% reserve as staff outline $181M shortfall and staffing trade-offs

Austin Independent School District staff told trustees on April 30 that the district's preliminary general-fund budget shows a $181 million gross deficit and includes a $50 million placeholder for property monetization. Chief Financial Officer Katrina McGomery presented three reserve scenarios — holding a 15%, 16% or 17% fund balance — and said the district would need reductions of roughly $127 million, $135 million or $143 million, respectively, after the monetization placeholder.

Why it matters: trustees must choose how conservative to be when setting the budget's revenue assumptions and reserve target. That choice will determine the depth and timing of cuts to staffing and programs in a budget where roughly 87–88% of operating dollars pay for payroll and benefits.

What staff presented: McGomery said staff reworked the recommended budget assumptions to a -2% ADA (average daily attendance) change and a -4% property-value assumption, explaining that the Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) had signaled a -3% outlook but prior years' forecasts have shifted by a couple of points by certification. She said the recommended assumptions, combined with other adjustments (including increasing vacancy-savings assumptions above prior 2%), reduce pressure on the current-year budget but still leave the $181M gross gap.

"We're all clear that it has the deficit of $181 million," McGomery said, summarizing the starting point for trustees.

Trustees' deliberations: Several trustees said they preferred targeting a 15% fund balance as the working assumption so staff could avoid making irreversible cuts now and instead plan for deeper decisions later if revenues come in lower than projected. "I would rather miss the fund balance mark by a little bit than guarantee that we hit it by making excessive cuts," said Trustee Kaufman, reflecting the sentiment of several board members who prioritized protecting student-facing services over larger immediate cuts.

At the same time, other trustees urged caution and said they wanted staff to use conservative revenue assumptions to avoid midyear shortfalls and emergency measures. McGomery acknowledged the trade-off and said her team's comfort level was between the TCAD '2-3% signal and a more conservative figure: "My heart wants to be at 3%. My head is like... so I landed approximately at negative 4%."

Requested follow-up: Trustees pressed staff for additional, granular information before any formal budget vote: line-by-line departmental budgets, the nature of the "other costs" bucket, a clear enumeration of central-office positions by function (not just by reporting line), and the program-level cost and enrollment data trustees have requested previously (transportation costs by program, grade-configuration savings estimates, costs tied to magnet and on-ramp programs, and the fiscal implications of keeping or selling specific properties).

Next steps: Staff committed to returning with more detailed materials and to continue scheduled budget workshops. McGomery said the administration would monitor ADA and TCAD updates and present updated revenue scenarios to the board. The board recessed and adjourned the open meeting at 8:27 p.m.

Ending note: The board did not take any formal adoption votes at the work session; trustees asked staff to flesh out specific reduction options and program-level impacts for future deliberations.