Argyle ISD board reviews budget outlook, recommends 3% pay increase and targeted staffing additions

Argyle ISD trustees at a special budget workshop on June 1 reviewed a tentative budget outlook and a compensation proposal that would add a 3% pay increase for teachers and a 3% median increase for other employees, while funding certain stipend adjustments and limited staffing requests within the district's planning parameter.

The board's staff presenter told trustees the district used a zero-based budgeting approach and had updated revenue estimates that increased available planning dollars from about $5 million to $5.2 million, allowing some additional staffing flexibility. "This is a new requirement...that requires us to include a taxpayer impact statement into our meeting agenda notices," said Liz Stewart when introducing statutory changes tied to House Bill 1520 and the timing for certified data.

Dr. Daniel, who led the compensation presentation, said the district works with TASBY for market comparisons and modeled a 3% across-the-board teacher increase and a 3% median increase for other staff that would remain within the district's $2 million planning parameter. "This is based on a 3% increase across the board," Dr. Daniel said, and later noted, "Everything that we're requesting tonight is within the two million." The recommendation also includes catch-up adjustments for certain experience points and targeted stipend additions for roles such as elementary choir directors, AV support, and selected special-education and campus-communications positions.

Other compensation components presented include a proposed district contribution increase of $50 per month toward employee medical insurance (sought in response to a roughly 10% rise in insurance costs) and an expansion of paid pre-K coverage for staff with eligible children; staff noted a planning estimate of up to 10 children and $7,500 per child for that program. The recommended stipend and insurance changes, combined with the pay increases, were presented as coming to just under $2 million.

Trustees discussed whether to adopt a larger raise (3.5–4% or a teachers-only 4% option); presenters warned a materially larger pay package would require pulling back some phase-three staffing requests because personnel costs drive most of the district budget. "If you were to go...4%, you're looking at having to pull back on some of the staffing request that we have," a presenter explained during discussion of tradeoffs. The board also noted that opening new campuses (notably the GMS campus) increases first-year operating costs — utilities, grounds and athletics — which affects near-term fund-balance calculations.

Phase three staffing requests summarized by staff include a teacher residency position, additional special-education aides, two aides at Hilltop to split a special-education classroom, a half-year counseling overlap instead of a full-year overlap, a bus monitor, one maintenance position, and an administrative assistant. Staff estimated those additions would cost approximately $261,750. Presenters also noted a working assumption used in the budget that roughly $500,000 equals a one-percentage-point change in salary cost districtwide.

Next procedural steps: the board scheduled the compensation plan to return for action on June 15, with a regular board meeting July 20, and plans to present the budget and adopt the tax rate on Aug. 24 to allow time for new tax-rate calculation requirements. The presenters emphasized that some numbers (notably the taxpayer-impact figures) will be updated after certified data arrive in late July or early August.

The presentation included department-level detail for athletics, fine arts, communications, technology (which reflects an ERP migration and software cost growth), maintenance and operations, and transportation (fuel and route additions). Presenters called attention to percentage swings driven by small baseline budgets — for example, choir percentage increases tied to adding campus participation — and explained capital-outlay timing differences that alter year-to-year comparisons.

The workshop concluded with questions from trustees about market comparisons, days-in-school differences when benchmarking teacher pay, and tradeoffs between compensation and staffing. The board did not take final budget action at the workshop; it will consider compensation for action at the June 15 meeting.