Belton ISD staff present three 2026–27 budget scenarios that trade pay increases for capital projects; board urged to decide on VATRE by early August

Belton Independent School District finance and administrative staff presented trustees a set of budget scenarios on June 15 that balance compensation increases against added capital and maintenance spending and outlined deadlines for a potential voter‑approval tax ratification election (VATRE).

Melissa, district finance staff, told the board the district’s May-based projection shows an estimated $2.6 million surplus for the 2025–26 fiscal year and a fund-balance ratio near 24 percent if that projection holds. She added the district has an outstanding appeal of state appraisal values that could increase revenue by about $2 million if the appeal is successful; the appeal’s certification is expected around August.

Why it matters: staff said the surplus and any successful value appeal would give the board one-time capacity to add to capital reserves or fund compensation, but recurring pay increases require sustainable revenue. Staff emphasized that budget scenarios presented this evening are for discussion; the formal proposed budget and tax-rate adoption will come to the board in August.

What staff proposed: the presentation included three balanced scenarios for 2026–27.

- Scenario 1 (staff-estimated total compensation cost roughly $1.5 million): an average teacher increase of about 1.2 percent (step plus $200) with a recommended zero‑year salary near $55,300. This scenario adds roughly $1.0 million for capital projects (an extra $500,000 above baseline) while keeping the district’s fund‑balance position strong.

- Scenario 2 (roughly $1.9 million compensation): an average teacher increase around 1.5 percent (step plus $425) with a zero‑year base near $55,500; it maintains a smaller additional capital allocation ($500,000) and includes a $2,000 high‑school math/science stipend for certified teachers.

- Scenario 3 (VATRE-funded, up to roughly $2.6 million compensation in staff presentation): if the board calls a VATRE to capture remaining local pennies the presentation showed larger revenue and a more substantial compensation package (2 percent average teacher increase, step plus $760, zero‑year base about $55,760 and larger stipends). Staff clarified calling a VATRE would require public‑notice steps by about Aug. 7 and a board decision by roughly Aug. 17 to keep the option available.

Compensation details and context: Todd, district staff who led the compensation discussion, described benchmarking work based on about 26 neighboring‑district surveys and noted some positions (instructional coordinators, counselors, school nutrition roles) receive targeted market adjustments. He said recent state changes tied to House Bill 2 affect step movement and that some step increases embedded in district pay scales will result in larger percentage changes for specific teachers moving between step years.

Benefits, one‑time bonuses and risks: staff confirmed the employee health‑insurance contribution would remain $410 under the scenarios shown; they expect health‑insurance rates to increase (staff cited roughly a mid‑single‑digit to low‑double‑digit percentage change). Staff also noted an option to use any realized FY25–26 surplus for a one‑time retention bonus (example given: $500 per employee) that would not create a recurring salary obligation. Multiple board members warned that adopting larger recurring raises without stable revenue risks returning the district to deficit budgeting if state funding shifts or mandated increases occur.

Facilities and bond context: Mike, district facilities staff, said the district typically budgets about $1.2 million for maintenance and repairs (roughly $900,000 in routine repairs and $300,000 held for summer projects) and described recent emergency spending (about $48,000 to save a gym floor). Staff said remaining bond savings after projects are roughly $2–2.5 million, but stressed that local funds will not solve long‑term facility backlogs identified in prior bond planning (Prop A).

Next steps: staff asked trustees to provide direction to the budget committee and said a compensation recommendation will be brought to the July board meeting followed by the formal proposed budget and tax‑rate adoption in August. Staff reiterated that the VATRE option requires public‑notice and scheduling steps in early August if the board wishes to pursue it.

Representative quotes

"We could be looking at approximately a $2.6 million surplus," Melissa, district finance staff, said, urging caution because year‑end spending and encumbrances could change the final result.

"These are our best scenarios that we can bring for compensation and stay balanced," Todd, district staff, said, noting the trade‑offs between one‑time capital investments and recurring salary increases.

What was not decided: the board took no formal votes at the workshop; trustees discussed priorities and asked staff for additional analysis on benefits contribution alternatives and the practical effects of one‑time bonuses versus permanent salary increases.

Documentation and timing: staff said the taxable‑value appeal outcome should be apparent by certification in August and that audited financial statements are typically presented in October–November. The board was told to expect a formal compensation recommendation in July and to decide whether to preserve the VATRE option by early August.