These issues led the district to close Pinkerton Elementary last year and call a voter-approval tax rate election or VATRE, which failed to pass. With limited options to increase revenue, trustees and administrators are discussing the possibility of doing the same this year.
The overview
Chief Financial Officer Diana Sircar presented budget updates to the board Jan. 15 which projected a nearly $8.7 million shortfall for fiscal year 2024-25 and an $18.7 million shortfall by fiscal year 2027-28. Budget projections starting in FY 2025-26 and beyond include the over $2 million saved by closing Pinkerton Elementary and consolidating two school programs.
“While we are looking at an $8.7 million deficit that may be a bit optimistic,” Sircar said.
The district’s budget shortfall for FY 2024-25 and subsequent years includes adjustments following the failure of the VATRE which would have generated $2.4 million in annual revenue for the district, Sircar said. In addition to exploring one-time revenue transfers and other reallocation options, district officials are also running attendance campaigns to raise daily attendance rates, as school districts only receive state funding based on these rates.
The state allots around $6,160 per student, an amount that has not changed since 2019 despite over 20% inflation since that time and underfunded state mandates that have contributed to CISD adopting shortfalls, according to previous Community Impact reporting. CISD also anticipates enrollment set to decline by almost 2,000 students in a decade, which would result in a funding loss of over $12 million in that time.
The details
Despite budget shortfalls, the board approved a 3% midpoint staff salary increase last year, but to do so every year going forward, the district will need to reduce expenses by $5 million each year, Sircar said.
CISD strives to stay ahead of its peer districts in staff compensation, some of which were unable to provide raises last year.
A 3% raise would cost around $3 million so reducing expenses by $5 million each year would trim shortfalls by $2 million year over year. Otherwise, the district will see shortfalls continue to increase. Budget projections outlined Jan. 15 assume a 3% raise each year and no increase in the basic allotment during the 89th legislative session.
Sircar said this is a difficult and aggressive plan, but if executed the 2027-28 shortfall would be around $3.4 million rather than $18.7 million.
Budget projections starting in FY 2025-26 and beyond include the over $2 million saved by closing Pinkerton Elementary and consolidating two school programs.
“The district needs to reduce expenses by $3 million for FY 2025-26 to meet the $5 million target,” Sircar said.
The projections do not include any potential revenue from selling the property, which is valued between $3.8 to $8.4 million, according to district documents. They also do not include any potential savings from rightsizing staff to declining enrollment, which would be done through attrition, Sircar said. Around 80% of the district's budget goes to paying staff.
“We really need to be thinking about teacher salaries as a variable cost,” she said. “It's variable based on the number of students that we have, the number of programs that we have and the schedules that we run. It's critical that we staff efficiently, but that's not going to drive enough savings. We still need to look at ways to reduce fixed costs out of the system such as additional school consolidations.”
What they’re saying
Trustee Manish Sethi said he has trepidation about discussing staff reductions when the district has “so much capacity lying in buildings.” The district already staffs based on enrollment and not based on number of schools or classroom space meaning the only variable left to focus on without affecting education quality is facilities, Sethi added.
Overall trustees leaned toward streamlining efficiency through facility reductions over measures that could impact school programs. However, in some proposed scenarios, the two can impact each other such as with New Tech High School. The campus has the lowest enrollment and utilization compared to Coppell High School and the Coppell High School 9th Grade Campus, marking New Tech High School as a candidate for consolidation based on last year’s facilities evaluation rubric.
But while the new tech program could be moved to another campus, the draw for many families could be the smaller school size, which means there is no guarantee that families would choose to continue the program at another campus, Sethi said.
New Tech was on the chopping block last year until the board elected to remove it as an option while charging district officials with bolstering enrollment. District staff began work on marketing campaigns and rebranding for the campus this year, according to district documents.
Trustee Leigh Walker said that rightsizing elementary schools with enrollment or consolidating the 9th grade campus would yield greater savings, as the enrollment decline, which is concentrated heavily in the elementary level, is set to trickle through to the high school level as time goes on.
Trustees concurred that calling another tax rate election this November is one of the last remaining revenue levers the district can exercise that would realize multimillion dollar savings annually.
Before calling a VATRE school districts are required to conduct efficiency audits, which CISD did last year. Officials are consulting district legal council to determine if the process must be undertaken again this year.
Looking ahead
Like last year, the board will hear recommendations from the Efficiency Review Committee before making any decisions on school closures or other facility retirements. The committee is comprised of staff and community stakeholders and will utilize the facility evaluation tool developed in summer 2024. The tool rates buildings on capacity, age and condition, cost to run and maintain, and proximity to neighborhoods.
The committee convenes Jan. 21 with meetings outlined through April. Members will review district demographics, budget survey results, the facilities rubric and other data throughout the process. The meeting schedule is as follows:
- Jan. 21
- Feb. 18
- March 27
- April 23
