Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Tax Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brazosport ISD outlines 2026–27 budget, proposes 0.8546 tax rate and reviews pay models
Summary
Brazosport ISD administration presented a 2026–27 budget with a proposed total tax rate of 0.8546 and three compensation models for board consideration; updated projections cut a previously forecast deficit while staff flagged contingencies, capital‑project transfer options and employer health‑contribution tradeoffs.
Brazosport ISD administrators on Tuesday presented the proposed 2026–27 budget and a recommended total tax rate of 0.8546, and outlined several pay models aimed at improving recruitment and retention while protecting the district's fund balance.
The district's chief financial officer, Gluvi Cancino, said the 0.8546 rate consists of an M&O rate of 0.6393 and an I&S rate of 0.2153 and represents a reduction from last year's total rate of 0.8975. Cancino told trustees the district expects certified property values on July 25 and has 60 days after that date to adopt a final tax rate; administration recommended publishing notice for a public hearing on June 18 at 6 p.m. to present the budget and proposed rate for formal consideration.
Administration reported updated projections showing revenues near $121.9 million and initially projected expenditures around $134.3 million. After targeted expenditure reductions, cancellations and use of contingencies, staff said the projected deficit improved from about $12.3 million to roughly $5.6 million. Cancino noted the district has approximately $12 million in the capital projects fund that could be used, if the board chooses, to offset operating shortfalls but cautioned that doing so would reduce funds available for future capital work.
Separately, the district's compensation update — presented as part of the budget work — summarized a TASB market analysis showing Brazosport ISD teachers average about 12.2 years of experience and that the district will receive roughly $2.1 million in teacher retention allotments. The human resources presentation described three pay scenarios: applying teacher step increases only; a 1% across‑the‑board pay increase; and a hybrid combining step increases with a one‑time stipend. Staff gave rough cost estimates for each option and warned of the tradeoffs to fund balance and long‑term sustainability.
Trustees pressed staff on employee health‑insurance affordability and potential Affordable Care Act (ACA) penalty exposure. Administration said about 50% of employees participate in district coverage and cited past penalty activity (one year with roughly $160,000 in assessed fees) as an example of the financial risk tied to affordability thresholds. Staff outlined estimated costs for incremental increases to employer contributions (for example, an additional $25 per month was estimated to cost roughly $217,800 annually) and urged trustees to weigh recruiting benefits against recurring cost obligations.
The administration said any use of capital‑project funds to balance recurring payroll increases would lower the capital fund available for future facility work; staff proposed preserving a cushion by holding transfers until year‑end decisions are clearer.
The board did not adopt the budget or tax rate at the meeting; staff recommended a public hearing and indicated a formal adoption would follow required public‑notice steps. The board amended the date for the budget public hearing to occur at its regular June 15 meeting and approved that procedural change by voice vote.
