San Felipe‑Del Rio CISD trustees review 2026–27 budget, administration proposes two $500 stipends instead of recurring raises

San Felipe‑Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District trustees on June 8 reviewed a draft 2026–27 budget that administrators said would leave the district roughly $2.7 million short without adjustments and recommended offering employees two one‑time $500 stipends rather than a recurring general pay increase.

Amy Childress, who presented the district’s interactive budget workbook, said the administration modeled 2%, 3% and 4% pay scenarios and used the 3% example in the presentation. “For the purpose of this demonstration…we are selecting the 3% increase which would be an additional cost to our current budget of $2,611,324,” Childress said.

The administration reported updated interest earnings of $1,250,000 and proposed revenues of $17,720,616 against projected expenditures of $110,419,922; the figures produced a shortfall described repeatedly in the meeting as about $2.7 million. Administrators cited several drivers for the gap: a prior-year maximum of raises that increases the marginal cost of additional raises, an estimated roughly $500,000 revenue decline tied to lower student enrollment and rising operating costs such as fuel and bus repairs.

To avoid committing to a recurring expenditure, district administration recommended against a general pay increase and proposed two one‑time, tax‑covered payments of $500 to all employees — one on Sept. 1 and a second on Jan. 15 — which administrators said would provide near‑term relief without adding to the recurring payroll base.

Trustees discussed timing and tradeoffs. Board member Brian Weston said he supported the stipend approach and favored the September/January timing, noting that the split also reduces payments to employees who may leave before January. Trustee comments emphasized avoiding the personnel cuts the district made in 2024; one trustee said the board’s priority was to “not go back down that road of having to reshuffle librarians, art teachers, [and] music teachers.”

Administration also presented line‑item savings the board could adopt in the zero‑based workbook: reductions to campus library book funding (from $6 to $3 per student, listed as a $29,538 saving), narrowing student drug testing (projected $47,185 savings), cuts in strategic planning consulting ($45,000), reduced GT testing consultant costs ($22,324) and trimming GT refresher extra duty pay ($30,000). Childress said personnel‑related selections showed $680,758 in savings in the scenario presented.

Trustees discussed other fiscal pressures and contingency planning. Administrators said the district has approximately $8 million in excess fund balance and has received about $4 million so far in wind‑farm allocations, with an expectation of another $1–1.5 million depending on final accounting. They warned that health‑insurance cost increases — estimated in the meeting at roughly $1.0–1.2 million — could materially increase the draw on fund balance and lead to deeper cuts without additional revenue.

The board agreed to publish the zero‑based proposed budget for public notice and scheduled a public hearing and adoption meeting for June 25; trustees said they expect to return later to adopt amendments if needed to fund stipends or cover health‑insurance costs once final figures are known.

No formal budget vote occurred at the workshop; the only recorded formal action was a motion to adjourn, which carried unanimously at 6:15 p.m. The administration said it will publish the public‑hearing notice in the newspaper and post the proposed budget to the district website by the end of the week.