Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin ISD presents preliminary FY2026–27 options, including $177M–$192M in possible reductions; trustees press for campus details
Summary
CFOs and district leaders presented preliminary options to close an estimated $177–$192 million gap, proposing reductions including stipend realignments, substitute incentive changes, staffing‑allocation changes, technology consolidation, police and transportation adjustments; trustees requested campus‑level staffing impacts and timelines before votes.
Austin ISD staff told trustees at a May 14 work session that the district faces a large operating gap and distributed a set of proposed reductions that, depending on a chosen fund‑balance target, would require roughly $177 million (15% target) to $192 million (17% target) in cuts or offsets.
CFO Katrina McGomery said the district modeled three fund‑balance scenarios: 15% requires about $177 million in reductions; 16% about $184 million; 17% about $192 million. Staff emphasized the proposals are preliminary and that a large body of backup materials and position‑by‑position data will be provided to trustees and principals to assess campus impacts.
Major themes in the staff presentation included:
- Stipend realignment: District leaders proposed tightening and realigning more than 150 stipend categories so payments are tied to work that is classroom‑facing; they said multilingual and special‑education stipends would be retained for direct service roles while other supplements would be reduced.
- Substitute incentives: Staff proposed simplifying substitute pay tiers and eliminating some pandemic‑era add‑ons, including a prior‑year 125‑day bonus that accounted for roughly $560,000; total substitute incentives and costs remain large (total substitute cost cited as ~ $20 million per year).
- Staffing allocations and planning time: To shrink payroll exposure, staff proposed adjustments to staffing ratios by band and school type (elementary/middle/secondary) and to planning‑time models in secondary schools. Staff said elementary planning time would be protected for 2026–27 but that middle and high school schedules may shift in phased years.
- Technology and software consolidation: District leaders recommended moving to enterprise platforms and reducing duplicate tools and device management stipends as the district transitions away from pandemic one‑to‑one device models.
- Transportation and operations: Staff reported savings from tighter fleet and fuel controls and proposed evaluating magnet/choice transport (currently moved to a hub model) for a potential participation fee or differentiated model for families who can pay; they also proposed reductions to low‑ridership late activity buses and certain ALC routes.
- Police/security: To comply with HB3 while managing costs, staff proposed a model using commissioned security officers (district employees with a narrower scope than police officers) for some campus coverage while preserving training and compliance requirements.
Trustees pressed staff for campus‑level allocation data showing how proposed ratio changes and stipend realignments would affect individual schools and asked how transportation or magnet adjustments would preserve access for families who rely on district buses. Trustees also repeatedly asked staff to show how baseline academic definitions would inform budget choices.
No formal votes were taken at the work session. Staff said they would return with more granular, campus‑level data before scheduled budget votes later this month.
