001Welcome ladies and gentlemen to this Berkeley County Board of Education budget workshop this Wednesday April 29th, 2026. I call this meeting to order. I declare a quorum is present and the media has been notified. I'll now entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. I've got Miss Littleton with the motion and Miss Bradley with the second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. All in favor, please respond by saying I. I. Opposed. Opposed nay. The eyes have it 7-0. And really quick for Lacy's benefit, I am going to um Mr. Ramsey is present. Miss Littleton is present. Miss Davenport present. Wofford is present. Miss Bradley is present. Mr. Borden is present and Miss Miss Coates is present. And Mr. Baker's also present. Mr. Baker's present. >> [clears throat] >> Hey,
002thanks. Mr. McQuillen. So that last vote, Lacy would have been 8-0 to approve the agenda. All right. So thank you everyone for joining. Um it was very hard to come up with a good time that worked for everyone. Um so apologies for the virtual meeting, but it gave us the best opportunity to uh meet, have some time, um and have discussion with each other to start this budget season. Um generally we kick off the budget season with a workshop um or two depending on how things go. Then there will be um formal readings of the budget. Then there will be a public hearing that will be noticed for the budget. And then normally the budget will be final approved sometime at the end of June. Um this directly correlates with the state. Uh as soon
003as the state gets the funding set and passes a budget, uh we will move expediently to approve of a budget, um but we are hinging off the state. Um so it's not our desire to wait till the absolute end of June, um but in the history that I've seen, that's how things have gone. Is it has been the end of June before the state passes a budget and they are a big part of our budget making process. So we will now go to Miss Abrahamson. Um Marcy, you are recognized to start the budget presentation. And um if possible, if folks could use the icon to raise your hand if you have questions. Um then we'll try to make sure everybody has a turn to to speak or ask questions as needed. Thank you, um Chair
004Wofford. >> [laughter] >> I am Give me just a second to share my screen. It wasn't letting me share at first. Can you all see my screen? Yes, ma'am. Perfect. And even better now, it is full screen. Perfect. Okay, let's go back to the beginning. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate y'all meeting virtually. I am actually um 3 hours behind you in a conference, but um so um I appreciate y'all um working together to get this scheduled for today. Um to start out, I just want to bring to your attention this is the House Ways and Means version of the budget. Um as you can see last year, the total allocation for education funding was 4. nearly 4.9 million dollars. This year, the projection is 5.1 and a half million dollars. Um that's a statewide
005increase of 283.4 million dollars. When you drill down to Berkeley County and just look at Berkeley County School District, what our share is, um last year our allocation for 2026 is projected to be 221 .4 million. My apologies, this is I need to get rid of Okay. I why it's not let me go backwards. Um and our projection for FY um 26-27 is 226.4 million, which is um appears to be a funding increase of about 5 million dollars for state revenue. But I want to draw your attention to and these are all the same totals just replicated um in my chart, but I want you to pay close attention to those two lines that are highlighted in red. Um the funds for reading coaches and the CTE, those funds, even though they come through with
006our state allocation, those are actually earmarked as special revenue money. They are not general operating money. So when you look at that 5 million dollars and you remove those two um slices of special revenue money, then we are only getting about an additional 913,000 dollars in state revenue for our general operating expenses. Um when you look at our local revenue, um in FY 25-26, we projected to get 261 million in local revenue. For FY 26-27, we're looking to get about 270.5 million, um which is about an additional 9.6 million dollars. That is a projected increase of 3.7% in local revenue. If you recall in years past, we've been seeing 9 and 10% growth in local revenue and we're just not seeing that this this coming year. Our growth in Berkeley County, although we're still growing,
007it is beginning to level off. So if you take all of that all those revenue projections for 26-27 and you combine our local and our state revenue, um this year our budget was 486 million. If you combine all the new revenue, that comes up to about 499 million, which is about a 13 million dollar increase in um revenue overall. Which is a 2.67% um revenue increase. If you look at our expected expenditures for 2020 26-27, um if you take the salaries that we have right now, um and positions that we have allocated right now, um that's about 433 million dollars is the cost in salary and benefits. Um our supplies and services, last year if you remember, we cut supplies and services to um help lift the employee pay increase. And so um this year
008we are going to have to increase supplies and services because we've seen some cost escalation in different areas such as fuel, technology, um our service contracts. Um again, those are all factored in and we're expecting to need a supply and service budget of 75.1 million. And I always like to look back in our historical millage history. Um for our debt service millage, um we were 10 years ago, we were at 65 mills. Then we went up to 75 and then we slowly um dropped down to 70 mills in 2019-2020. Um and then when we passed the penny sales tax, we held our promise to you our taxpayers that we would lower the debt service millage because that is the millage that impacts them the most significantly. And um we lowered it to 55 mills. And
009we've kept it there for the past 3 years. Um for our operating millage, back in 2015-2016, we were at 159.9 mills. Um it was increased to 163.8. Then when we had the reassessment um in 2019-2020, we dropped the millage down to 151.8. We held it there for 5 years. We never increased millage during those 5 years. And I think it's important to remember that during those 5 years, um, was during COVID. We saw a lot of cost escalation related to COVID, um, a high inflation rates, all of those things, but we were able to maintain our operating millage at 151.8. In 2024-2025, we had another reassessment and we dropped that millage down to 141.9. And, um, if you recall at the last board meeting on April 20th, um, David Sheetwood provided a, um, different funding
010scenarios for our debt service millage and I want to introduce that into our general fund discussion as well because, um, it's going to be very important, um, for us to look at some funding opportunities. And so, at our current funding scenario of 55 mills, you can see on that far right-hand column, um, we have plenty of funding and at the 55 mill rate. And we also asked him to look at doing 50 mills and 46 mills. If you If we drop down to 46 mills in debt service, as you can see in that right-hand column, we still have plenty of money to handle our debt service and our, um, projected budget needs for, um, technology, um, repair and maintenance, um, of our facilities. And then in that center column, you see our 8% debt and
011our 1% sales tax. All of that is combined and you see, even when we see the, um, sales tax drop-off in 2030, we still have plenty of money, but our hope, of course, is that we're going to be able to pass that penny sales tax and continue to use those funds to, um, support our building program. And I bring this up for discussion because what we could do, as you can see, we have the money that we need in our debt service budget, um, and we're struggling a little bit this year in our general operating budget. And what I want to provide is just a scenario of if we dropped our debt service millage and reallocated from 55 to 46 and took those nine mills and reallocated those over to our general operating budget, our
012total millage would remain the same, but we would see about a $21 million decrease in our debt service funding and we would see an increase of about 13.5 million in our general operating money. Although it's not a dollar-for-dollar swap, it does, um, strategically strategically realign that money to allow us to use those funds where we need them in our general operating budget. Um, and it and it doesn't have and it allows us to, um, maintain our debt service payments and our 8% borrowing. With this scenario and based on preliminary analysis and discussions with the, um, county, homeowners will realize an overall decrease in their owner-occupied homes, their secondary homes, personal personal property, which is cars and boats, and commercial properties will not see a change. I'm sorry, they'll see a decrease in owner-occupied and then
013secondary homes, which is your 6% um, personal [clears throat] property, which is cars and boats, and commercial property will not see a change. Um, but what it does is it moves the money from, um, it takes the money from our debt service bucket and puts it into our operating bucket, which is where we need that revenue. Um, again, this is a millage, um, a little brief snapshot of our millage history and every year we get, um, information from the state that tells us what our millage Every year we can increase millage and it's based on and we get a cap from the state on what that increase can be and, um, that [clears throat] is based on the inflation, the CPI, which is the inflation rate, and population growth. If you look back, I I
014just went back 5 years. If you look back to 22-23, we could have increased our millage rate by 6.91% at that time. We were at the 151.9, which would have been a 10.5 mill increase. Um, we did not increase that millage. In 23-24, again, you see that's the years that we had high inflation. We could have increased our millage by 11.48%, which would have been a 17.4 mill increase. Again, based on the 100 the 51. 9 rate, it, um, it would have increased our millage to 169.2. Um, 24-25, we could have raised it by 8.31% and then as you see in 25-26 and 26-27, we're dropping down to the, um, to 6%. So, as you can see, as the population growth levels off and the inflation levels off, our ability to increase our millage cap
015also is lowered. And, um, I think it's very important that everyone realizes that during those really tough years that and we did not, um, increase millage for our taxpayers, our growth was able to sustain us. >> [clears throat] >> If we reallocate that millage to strategically put that debt service funding back into the general operating bucket, that would increase, um, our local our total revenues to 512.5 million dollars, which would be an overall increase of 5.45%. Even with those increased projected revenues of 512.5 million dollars and then the from the slide with the salaries and the expected salaries and benefits and supplies and services needed for 26-27, that's 508 million. That's still That's a projected, um, surplus of 4.4 million dollars. But again, that's with no salary changes. That's if everything stays stagnant with our
016salaries. If we were to increase, um, salaries, we would, um, and every year, as you know, we provide a step increase for all eligible employees. That's got a price tag of about 5.7 million dollars. If we did a 2% pay increase for all eligible staff, that would be an additional 8.5 million dollars, which is 14.2 million additional dollars. And this would increase our first year teacher salary to $57,905. By doing If we were to do that as our salary increase, again, the step increase and a 2% pay increase for all employees, that surplus, um, then becomes about a $10 million deficit. If we were to Another option for salary increases would be to provide a step increase for all eligible employees, which is the 5.7 million because I feel like that's the minimum that we
017can do. Um, we can increase each cell of the teacher salary schedule by $2,500, which is, um, about $9 million, but it puts our first year teacher salary at $59,270. So, we're getting close to that $60,000 mark. Um, and then do a 2% pay increase for all other eligible non-teaching staff. That's about 2.4 million, which would be a $17 million, um, cost. And with that $17 million cost minus the 4 and 1/2 million that we have in surplus, we're still looking about a $12.7 million, um, need funding need to, um, in order to do that, um, option for our employee salaries. The other things that we have to consider is, um, the prices that are due to increase due to the to to the current economic volatility, especially where technology and fuel and utility costs
018are concerns. A lot of our increased, um, budget requests increases for this upcoming year is related to our our utility and our fuel cost and also our technology cost. And I will tell you, technology has really escalated just in the past 2 months. Um, we also are not still unsure of how the changes at the federal level, how that's going to affect that federal funding that we receive in our special revenue funds. Um, the initial, um, report back from, um, Dr. Ling when she went to Washington was that we were going to the state of South Carolina was going to see about an overall $8 million decrease in, um, Title 1 funding and that they warned the larger school districts that they will probably take the brunt of that reduction. Um, so I, just for
019budgeting purposes, I'm thinking we're we're probably going to take about a $2 million hit to Title 1. Um, again, our special revenue funds don't increase when we increase our salaries. So, any pay increase that is not covered by the um federal funds has to be absorbed by our general fund. And to remain competitive with salaries and benefits, we want to remain competitive with those salaries and benefits because we want to recruit and retain highly qualified staff. Another hit that we're going to take to our local revenue is the new tax rate for watercrafts. Um that's going to impact our local revenue, and of course we're in an area where we have bodies of water and we have lots of boats. So, that is going to impact our um our local revenue. The Senate um is
020was is due to vote on their budget. Um actually, I said next week, but I think it's going to be this week, um possibly next week. And from the initial um word is they were going to make additional cuts to education funding, but of course then it has to go back to the house. But last year we saw that for the first time, typically when we get the house the Senate version of the budget, we usually get a couple million dollars more. Last year we got less, and this year it looks like the Senate version of the um budget also has less in education funding. Um there was a there's been a lot of discussion about our new funding formula, and we um we went back to the drawing board with that. Um after lots
021of discussion, the legislation went back to the drawing board with the funding formula, and they made some recommended changes um in December 2025, but we did not see that result in any significant um increase for our state revenue for Berkeley County School District. Um just as a frame of reference, um I wanted to share um the top five districts in the state as far as funding are Charleston, Beaufort, York 4, which is Fort Mill, Berkeley, and Horry. And if you you see the amount per pupil um for Charleston is 28,450 with $6,666 coming from state and 20,300 305 coming from local revenue. Um Beaufort um again, 27,523, 7,853 of that is state, 18,377 of that is local revenue. Fort Mill School District, they have 20 20,274 per pupil with 8,075 coming from the state and
02211,733 coming from local. Berkeley, we're number four at 20,068 dollars per student um with 8,294 coming from the state and 10,578,000 but 10,578,000 coming from our local revenue. And Horry is at 19,210 with 7,410 coming from state and 10,395 from local. And I share this because I also want to share the highest teacher salaries in the state as of the based on the 25-26 data. And as you see, Charleston has the highest starting teacher salary at 64,782. Beaufort um is now at 60,087. Berkeley is at 56,770. Um and York is at 52,500, and Horry is at 52,029. Um Our preliminary um word on the in the street basically is that Charleston is looking to increase their first-year teacher salary by 70,000 by 27-28. So, if you go back to the previous slide and this slide,
023you can see that there's a direct correlation between the top teacher salaries and the amount of local funding. And I want to point out that Berkeley, even though we were number four for um funding per pupil, we're number three as far as the highest paid teacher salary. So, um again, [clears throat] that just shows that our district is prioritizing our employees. So, where does that leave us? >> [gasps] >> So, for our funding scenarios, we can end um as I said, we can decrease our debt service millage by nine mills and increase our general operating millage by that those same nine mills, which gives a zero net effect on our total millage, but it does result in a cost savings for our primary homeowners with no effect on secondary homes, personal property, which is boats
024and cars, and commercial properties. And although it's not a dollar-for-dollar reallocation of the money, it does provide the um it does provide a decrease for our taxpayers, but it also puts that money in a bucket in the general fund operating bucket where we need it. Um we could also designate designate the use of fund balance to provide funds to cover any budget deficit based on which salary option um we choose, or we can do strategic re- and we are also continuing to um work internally for a strategic redeployment of positions and make further revisions to supply and service budgets. But again, as you know, we we cut our supply and service budgets last year, and this year we've had to adjust for inflation, and most of the changes that you see in those supply and
025service budgets um can be substantiated with um cost increases. So, the next steps are um to conclude our budget workshop today after some discussion. Um we were going to try to have our first reading of our budget on May 18th, but since we had to push back the first budget workshop, um I think we're going to do the um we're going to push that second budget workshop to May 18th, and then we can still stay on track to do um and then do the the first reading of the budget on June 15th, and then we'll have to use that June 29th date for the public hearing and the second reading. Is there any discussion? Watch your waffle. Would like to also um add to this uh that we do have some discussion that we would
026like to have with um talking in terms of our repurposing and realignment of our GOF some GOF funds and some of our federal funds, but I know that was a lot of information that you just received to digest, so I didn't know if you wanted to pause and have some discussion now or um just hear it all and then come in with discussion. Let's Let's go ahead and get all the information. Copy. Okay. Well, I um also want to since we're talking some GOF, I want to share some information, then I'm going to pass it over to um Jennifer Crowley, who's our chief academic um innovation officer, who wants to also share some information on our um GOF, I mean our federal funds um as well. But tonight I want to address just an important
027part of our budget development process uh for the as an item just for information for you. As we continue this work, we remain committed to our responsibility to steward resources strategically and align organizational structure to the needs and ensure that every dollar um and existing position is utilized as effectively as possible for the students we serve. As we enter as we work through this budget development, it became clear that in order to meet the needs of our growing district, support our schools, our new schools being open, and ensure proper staffing allocations for the upcoming year, we must carefully examine how current resources are deployed. Uh and through this review, we have identified approximately 3.5 million um in existing certified and classified salary allocations that can be repurposed through organizational realignment, restructuring, and operational efficiencies. And
028this is a strategic reallocation of existing positions, responsibilities, and resources to better align with our district priorities and operational needs. So, I just want to be very clear that this is not about reducing personnel, but it's um definitely about ensuring that the resources we already have structured to support schools, students, and the work ahead rather than seeking additional allocations um when we come to the board on Monday with our our traditional allocation book and allocation um ask. And we must use our current resources efficiently and refocus existing allocations so we can preserve jobs, response um respond to needs, and ensure principals begin the school year with clear staffing plans and operational stability. So, uh in Berkeley County our priority has to been to retain employees whenever possible through updated responsibilities, reassignment, and reallocation based on
029district needs. And in these we remain available opportunities to current employees. We seek to retain employees while adapting changing operational priorities. So, by repurposing this 3.5 million in existing allocations, we position ourselves to align our resources more directly to district priorities while maintaining our commitment to schools, students, and students. This work allows us to build allocation models, just being innovative with our allocation models, and be responsive to the changing needs our growing district, and sustain and to be sustainable over time and centered on what we are focused on the most is our student outcomes. So, before any implementation of any reallocation of any types of resources, key conversations we would like to have with our employees whose duties, responsibilities, or locations may be shifting or transitions plans will be developed, and this process will be
030handled professionally and respectfully. Organizational adjustments can create uncertainty, but even when the purpose is preservation and strategic alignment rather than reduction. That's key. And we recognize that. So, at the same time we want to we must balance that reality with our obligation to responsibly to responsibly allocate and utilize finite resources in ways that best serve our schools and are innovative and near of nearly 50,000 students across the district. My purpose tonight is to inform you of the need for this operational and budgetary direction so that I can direct cabinet and staff to finalize allocation books to bring to you Monday. And when we bring those allocation books to you Monday, that gives us time to look at our current school allocations, make adjustments to those allocations, and having these allocation books prepares you know just
031our essentials that schools need clarity and our leaders need planning tools and our employees need to be informed of staffing structures, expectations, changes, and responsibilities and contracts before those are submitted back to us by May 10th. And so, we want to make sure that we give them enough time to look at that and work with them to digest it. And again, this is repurposing and realignment of resources to better meet our needs, not an expansion of spending, not a reduction of personnel, but more strategic and efficient use of the finite resources we already have. It is about ensuring our ability to support schools, including the opening of two new schools, improving organizational efficiency, preserving employment whenever possible, and ensuring that we enter the next school year stronger, more aligned, and positioned to continue serving our
032students well. And I appreciate the board's partnership as we continue this work, and I look forward to bringing forward the allocation book on Monday for your review and approval of any types of changes that or repurposing and realignment that we may make. So, after now I want to kind of share the same plan with our federal program funds, which we don't have the budget for yet. So, we don't have the budget projections, but we're almost we're getting there. We're waiting on the feds to send those to us. Thank you so much, Dr. Dixon. Just to expand on what Dr. Dixon said, we are looking at the state is going to receive about a $4 million cut in Title I funding. We did not receive our preliminary Title I allocation until June of last year with
033us not getting finalized numbers until the fall. We are expecting it any day, but that historically last year is when we did receive that preliminary allocation. Good evening, Board Chair Walford, board members, and Superintendent Dixon. We are proactively making strategic adjustments based on the board's commitment to return on investment and the anticipated federal and state funding reductions. Our goal is to continue to be a leader and model for other South Carolina districts who are equally challenged to discover more efficient ways to utilize resources within the regulations while still balancing allowability. This year we have worked with a third party to examine the alignment of the activities funded with the ESEA formula grants managed by the Office of Federal Programs. Their report shows high alignment integrity with our Elementary and Secondary Education Act grant funds and
034Berkeley's district strategic plan and achievement priorities. With alignment confirmed and compliance evidenced through excellent South Carolina Department of Education monitoring and audit reports, we have approached the issue of reduced funding by considering activities where costs could be reduced while maintaining and enhancing the return on investment as well as a positive impact on district and state academic measures. The proposal shared with you for tonight's meeting summarize adjustments we are planning to adapt to the projected 26-27 cost reduction in federal grant funds by modifying two already approved grant funded activities. These strategic moves will allow us to create a more centralized and efficient model for both position groups that will maximize impact on student achievement and school improvement while reducing overall cost and increasing returns. Some highlights. This proactive approach generates nearly $2.1 million in combined savings,
035approximately 798,000 from the coaching and 1.3 million from the facilitator restructuring. This cost reduction will be used to minimize the impact of the projected grant cuts to schools and district initiatives and be redirected toward higher impact grant funded academic priorities. Both plans shift staffing models to prioritize ELA and math outcomes, classroom instruction, and measurable academic growth ensuring a stronger return on investment tied to student performance in alignment with the board and Dr. Dixon's direction. Certified staff will be redeployed into classroom and high needs roles addressing staffing gaps while preserving talent and avoiding reduction in force disruption. A more centralized model for both positions will have defined supervision and deployment of district initiatives, standardized processes that improve consistency, strong systems for compliance, and data cycles that will improve the district's ability to measure and scale impact
036over time. Thank you so much. So, I think my first question goes back to Marci. With the CTE $4 million is specifically for CTE. Are what are the obligations for that money for CTE? Are we able to to use that money on positions or pay raises or anything surrounding CTE or is it specifically for supplies or new programs? Ma'am, we did confirm with the South Carolina Department of Education that that funding could also be used to support salaries and benefits. >> [clears throat] >> So, we could take the CTE salaries and set them aside and draw from that $4 million potentially. Yes, ma'am. For the facilitator, I guess maybe back to Jen. For the um I'm sorry, Ms. Crowley. Um for the facilitators and the coaches, give me an example or or try to tell
037me like what a current school has and what the change looks like. Did they have, you know, X number of coaches and this facilitator handled so many schools, and now that's going to be so many certified teachers. Can you explain that to me a little bit better? Yeah. So, right now [clears throat] we have 20 Title I facilitators. So, 20 of our Title I schools have a Title I facilitator in it. We do have some schools that do not receive a great deal of funding, so some of them share a Title I facilitator, but the majority of them do have one Title Title I facilitator per building. With this new approach, we would hire, dependent upon how much Title I funding we receive from the state, we will hire a certain amount that would serve
038here at the district level, and we would reduce the number and then redeploy them to where one Title I facilitator might have two to three schools. So, there would and they would be managed at in academics, whereas right now they are currently at schools supervised by principals. With the reduction in funding in the amount of money being needing to be managed getting less, we do believe that the need for us to have 20 is no longer needed. And so we would like to reduce the number that we have and then redeploy them with them being managed within academics. And again, they would kind of have between two to three schools, but that would all depend on the amount of money that each school received, which would be based on our allocation. If we received you
039know, more money than we thought, then we would hire, you know, more. If we received less money from the state, then we would hire less. But those 20 schools have one person in their building every single day that manages their school's plan. Where this new approach would be hiring a certain amount that would be managed in academics and they would still receive the same amount of service as in they would go in and schools, help them with their title one plans, ensure that we're in compliance. And it would also allow us within the title one plans right now, schools are having to pay for half of that title one facilitator. By utilizing this model, they would no longer have to pay for the title one facilitator and they would get that money back at the
040school level. So it's essentially putting more Hopefully it can put more dollars into the school to directly impact student outcomes. Yes, sir. And then we are currently looking at middle school coaches. So right now all middle schools have one coach for their building. That is managed and supervised by the principal. What we are looking at moving to with this new model is that we would hire um three excuse me, three ELA coaches and three math school improvement coaches that again would be managed at within district office. Every week they would receive professional development with the coordinators and then they again would be deployed to middle schools. Many of them being partnered up. Where, you know, instead of having someone in your building every single day, it would be one person that would serve, you know,
041maybe two to three schools. But again, they would teachers would get um that coaching every single day, but it would be more streamlined with being able to receive that professional development every single week and then being deployed out to those schools. So that's right now what we are looking at for the middle school model for instructional coaches. So for example, and I'm sorry Miss Coats, can you jump just one follow up? For example, is it by number of teachers? So maybe one person would have Berkeley Middle School, but someone else may have Cross, St. Stephen and and Macedonia Middle because the number of teachers at those three schools is still probably let maybe less than the number of teachers at Berkeley Middle School. Yes, ma'am. You're exactly right. Yes, ma'am. And then the hope is,
042you know, as y'all are aware, middle schools are content-based teachers. And so when we have three, you know, math coaches and three ELA coaches, they can go serve those content area teachers where right now with the middle school coaches, they might be only an ELA teacher and so it would be able to essentially be able to support more teachers, we believe, by having more coaches certified in ELA and math to go out and be deployed. Essentially, the district level coaches could both be at, for example, Berkeley Middle School, one of our largest middle schools, and both both ELA teachers and math teachers are receiving support the same day because they're content-based. They're yeah, content content-based multiple. Miss Coats. Okay. So >> [clears throat] >> So I have to ask, this is a budget conversation, not
043a an HR conversation. What was your federal budget and what does it look like when you reduce $4 million? Give me the dollar to dollar comparison. So for special funding for title one facilitators No, no, you said I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back up. I'm working get there. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Your initial your initial statement was our federal funding programs will be cut by about $4 million. So give me the dollar that it was and what is that when you cut $4 million? Give me the budget, the federal funding dollars you're referencing that started this conversation. So all we have been told is that we are expecting a federal the state is expecting a $4 million cut in federal funding. We have not received our preliminary allocation. They have just stated that we
044should as a bigger district as a bigger district be expecting to have a cut. So what was your federal fund What was your federal funding budget last year? Let me pull that one second. Dr. Lane, can you come off of mute? You probably have it right there in front of you. Uh Mhm. Um I think she's in on the attendee side, so she may need to Okay. text this. We'll get that to you right >> Yep. Give me one second. Yeah, I see she's not a she's not on the panel, so she can't she can't speak. Sorry, Dr. Lane. Yeah. And so then the next question is going to tailor to that. Give give us dollar figures for everything you just said. Cuz if you we have 20 facilitators, you said that at one point
045you said there was one per school and at one point you said some have one per per school and some don't. What's that dollar figure and then what's your dollar figure you've costed out with projections for your new plan? For 25-26, 20 title one facilitators plus two OFP specialists, which is what we've had this year, was $2,611,125. With the proposed plan for 26-27, we would potentially, again, this is all contingent on the amount of money we receive, if we did eight title one specialist for the district plus two OFP Are title one specialists also title one facilitators cuz this is the first time I'm Okay, so So reducing your 20 title one facilitators to eight title one facilitators reduces and and then doing three ELA coaches and three math coaches versus the 16 current. What's
046the What's the proposed budget for that program look like with that configuration dollar-wise? Okay. So just title one, I'm going to start with that one. We it began with $2,611,125. With the new plan, it would be $1,295,000 with an estimated savings of $1,316,125. That's specifically for the title one facilitator position reduction and redeployment. Moving into the instructional coach position for middle school, right now we have 14 middle school instructional coaches that cost $1,698,200. If we moved forward with three ELA and three math, that would bring down us to $900,000 with an estimated cost savings of $798,200. And just to add to that, because it it when you start mentioning positions, it becomes a HR, so we wanted to leave it just at numbers so we can begin to talk to the board individual and bring
047it to the next workshop so we can have conversations at the school-based level, you know. It with >> Absolutely. I'm Yeah, I I just want the dollar figures. Just dollar And then Miss Coats, I'm ready to give you title one if you're ready for that. For FY26, we had $8,499,706.51. And we have not received our FY27 preliminary. Okay. So do you think that these reductions in dollars will will be taken will be correlate to the reduction in the revenue for that. I'm looking to see if any of those salaries could go to GOF or anywhere else and it won't. It'll this these cuts will be eat up by their own reductions. Yes, ma'am. That's what we believe is going to happen. Okay. And this is us just trying to be strategic and plan ahead with
048knowing student outcomes are the board's, you know, um uh main priority um along with being proactive with the reduction of funding for special revenue. Um Chairwoman Woodford, I have one or two more questions or do you want to go around and come back to me? Uh no, ma'am. You have the floor. And Ms. Ling has uh Dr. Ling has been promoted to panelist. Uh I didn't know you could do that. So, thank you, Ms. Brabham, for doing that. So, uh you can also ask uh Dr. Ling direct questions. Okay. So, this is more going back to the the the global budget. Um So, the first thing that strikes me is we went the year 2024-25, our other GOF was 75 million. The year 25-26, it's 65 million. And now we're proposing 75 again. So, that
049doesn't sound like an increase overall. Cuz I mean I think it would help if we'd seen that trend, but I don't think we're actually increasing our services budget if we normalize that over the last 3 years. Yes, ma'am. When we adjusted our supply and service budget, we aligned it with historical use from the prior year because we left some money on the table that year. Um so, again, we worked to maximize salaries and we saw where we could make some cuts to budgets. Um unfortunately, with inflation and price increases and those kind of things, we're going to have to put our um salary, supply, and service budgets back to essentially where they were 2 years ago. My only concern, and God knows I am not one in here advocating to spend more money, is you
050literally are going to say we're going to spend the same amount of money we did in 2024-25 with 2 years worth of inflation and two brand new schools. And I just asking, would y'all please scrub that number because think about what you just said, 2 years worth of cost increases in goods and services and adding two whole facilities and you're only going to spend the same amount of money that you did before. And if you can, hallelujah, thank you, Jesus, but if not, we need to know that on the front side rather than have an overage on the back side. Right. Okay. Our preliminary lift that we that we believe we can do it with that budget. Um Okay, cuz I know we've had overages in our budget. I just want to make sure that
051we the last thing we need to do is is have overages going out of next year. Correct. >> then my So, we the only other question that I would ask tonight because I'm I'm not ready for much else is 2024-25 to 2025-26, we went up $10 million in GOF. 2025-26 to 2026-27, we're going to go up 10 to $12 million in GOF based on your preliminary numbers right now. If we eat up every ounce of debt service to GOF um to operating tax swap, what are we going to do next year when you go up $10 million more? >> [snorts] >> Um [clears throat] Uh we could look at because we have some debt that's going to fall off in 2028-29, we could look at doing that additional change um in debt service millage versus
052and um reallocate it to GOF. We will have to see what it looks like at that time. Um or we'll have to have those hard conversations about increasing our millage rate. Is there any way we could get by with less of a swap this year? Just to help us because I do think that I think that this is the last conversation that we can reasonably have as a board that doesn't include a deep dive into expenses. We can no longer continue to say these are the expenses and how do we find the revenue to pay for it. We're going to have to start talking about cost. So, this is this does include the lesser of the options to decrease because I wanted to make sure that we did have that buffer uh for the >>
053was the I thought 46 was the lowest one they proposed on Monday night. You're proposing the absolute lowest debt service millage they proposed. Yes, ma'am. They've given us some other options that we could not make 46 the lowest. I'm sorry. Ah, okay. So, there are other options than what we saw on Monday night. I would just caution to look at that. I'm very hesitant to go all the way down to 46 so we can sit here in 12 months with the same cost issues that we have now and nowhere to go to get the $10 million that it's going to increase. That and I I think that's just a statement. I I don't know that we can solve that tonight, but that's just something I think we need to be very cognizant of. Thank you,
054Chairwoman Woodford. Thank you, Ms. Coates. Um I don't see anyone else's hand raised, but I'm sure other people um have questions. One of the things we normally state in budget workshops or our priorities um funding para-professionals, um having support in the classroom, having more people available to kids in the classroom, I would say is my very top priority um and trying to um pay people and and be competitive is really important to me as well. Um And there's probably people who will fall over when I say this. I don't know that a decrease for your 4% homeowners is the right thing to do. Uh we may need to look at what keeps us even with 4% homeowners and is there a way to keep us even with 4% and 6%? That might not be possible.
055Um but I feel like generally if we decrease someone's tax bill and they have kids in school or are are engaged with us, they would be wondering what we're doing. Um so, I don't know that there is a a good answer there and Ms. Coates, I I also feel the same about some of the costs um discussions. I have the benefit of doing this a little bit longer. So, several years ago, we did a zero um we went to zero and built budgets from zero. Nothing based on historicals like just because you got yeah, you know, $2 million to do that last year like every every program and every dollar had to be re-verified. Um that is super time-intensive, but I don't disagree that we may have to do some of that. Um and then
056also I don't know how we're going to open two new schools and not have more supplies that are needed. And so, you know, maybe when we come back and talk about this again, we can talk about like the supply allocation per school and what the new schools do, but it's really hard for my mind to do the math to say we're going to open two new schools and not um and not be able to uh yeah, increase at all. And then third, I would advocate for um Mr. Ramsey's uh topic that he and I have discussed multiple times before um of an immersion school somewhere in the Goose Creek area that helps our um English as a second language learners a way to get those learners up to an English proficiency before they go into
057mainstream classrooms uh treating those kids that um do not have English as their first language um getting that intense um time to get them where they can mainstream, but we have a lot of elementary schools with teachers who have multiple kids that um is very difficult to um maintain a kid at a room of 20-something kids and then also have multiple kids that the teacher cannot communicate with. So, I think that idea would be a reallocation of resources. I think, you know, it would be a different way to think of things. Um I think we have some school space where that could be possible. Um But I just want to throw that out there that that that is important to us um figuring out a way to support those students and also relieve those uh
058teachers in those areas where they're really struggling with that. So, I just wanted to throw a couple of priorities out there from my perspective. Um Ms. Coates threw her hand up. So, we'll go Ms. Coates next and then we'll go to the next board member so everybody can have a chance. So, that's not inventing the wheel. There are two school districts in South Carolina that have a program sort of what you're describing, Sally. So, I would say if you're if you're serious about this, guys, then y'all need to ask the board to direct staff to reach out to those school districts and get you a cost structure on that. What it looked like to build the building or what it looks like to staff it with certified teachers and translators. But it exists, so if
059we're serious about doing that, we we need to know exactly what that looks like and it looks that way in I think Yocasset and Charleston has it. It might be Rock Hill. But it was one of those I get up in that area. So it's not it's not new and it's not a it's not a secret what it has to look like. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I I was not aware of that, so I think that's something we would be very interested in um using some of the space we have available um in the Goose Creek area. And I think there's a a big picture of it using the space available personnel and then there's a transportation piece of it as well. Um All right, I'm going to just roll down the the list and
060I'm sorry, Dr. Dixon, did I speak over you? No problem. No, no, I just wanted to also um ask uh Ms. Abrahamson if she could [snorts] explain how we with our new schools that are opening, the startup funds that are also budgeted for those schools within the current funding structure um as well. Could you explain that to me? Yes, sir. The um preliminary supply and service budget and general fund has preliminary budget set up for um Bee Tree Elementary and Midtown Middle based on what our current enrollment projections are and then additionally every new school that opens, they receive additional capital money for 2 years for their startup costs. Like if they have to buy you know, trash cans and you know, different things like that to get the school up and running, you know,
061to get going and they need you know, additional furniture or whatever, um we can use the capital money for they get that capital money for those those first 2 years. So um but the general fund is already the supply and service budget shown in the general fund already um has numbers in there for their preliminary enrollment and what we would normally provide a school based on um their allocation, their student enrollment and what our supply allocations are. So that's those numbers that you see um by location. Um Those two locations are factored in there. Um also just to bring this up, if we don't want to um you know, we were kind of talking about a reallocation of millage. Our millage cap for general fund this year is 9.5 mills. We could potentially raise um
062millage 9.5 mills um and it's and roughly the value of a um general operating mill is about 1.5 million. Um But then um the value of a debt service mill is about two two million, so that's why there's not a dollar for dollar swap when you do that. But if we leave debt service alone or reduce it slightly, we still can increase operating millage by 9.5. And that will give us, like I said, about um 1.5 million dollars per millage. Got it. >> we also have the ability for unused millage over the past 3 years, we can go back to any unused millage we left on the table um from the past 3 years to increase um general operating millage more if we needed to. I'm not sure we have an appetite to go backwards
063or even go to the I don't I actually haven't really discussed this with anybody um [snorts] on the phone, so I don't know what our general appetite is for >> Yes, ma'am. I and I and I realize that, that's why we were kind of looking at the reallocation um because I know that's something um our board, you know, historically in Berkeley County, we've always looked out for our taxpayer and so that's why we were looking at this, but I just kind of wanted to lay all the options on the table just so everybody has a chance to digest it and I get some direction where we want to go to bring back to you to the next for the next budget workshop. Yes, ma'am. But yeah. All right. Historically, we haven't had that appetite and
064we haven't given any direction for that. And we Yeah. Thank you. So I'm going to just go um in order for the board members just to make sure everyone gets a chance um this was a lot of information to process, that's why we start off with a workshop. Um so District 1, Mr. Ramsey, um do you have any additional um priorities or concerns or questions that you'd like to contribute? Well, now with all the circumstances that's been presented, it become hard to um have any additional priorities as far as um I think first got to address the priorities that were presented. Um I've never um Having a low millage rate has yielded great returns on the back end as far as from business and as far as from industrial in Berkeley County billions and billions
065of dollars in investment, so um got to keep that in mind. There's a cause and then a effect. It sounds like we're obviously going to have a really tough budget year with a lot of tough decisions. Um what was articulated by Ms. Abernathy at the very beginning seemed to be pretty logical and then of course, we always have one-time fund balance distribution. I would never be for um a reoccurring fund balance distribution. But I think we have a lot of thought and a lot of discussion and a lot of figuring out. Um It sounds uh like I say, a very difficult year, but we've made a lot of good decisions in the past in the past that has set us up for success, so I'm very confident that we will continue to be successful and
066we will figure it out. But other than that, I don't have anything to add at this time. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Mr. Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey, we could look into like these one-time innovative ways to allocate fund balance. Um just on these one-time >> that needs to be on the table. So we'll put that on the table. >> that I'm hearing is we need to think of but it needs to be um prudent and it needs to be well thought out. But we've done that in the past where we've done one-time fund balance and because we have always done such a good job with our fund balance, we have that rainy day fund in there. But um and we are we are competing well with other school districts and we are moving student test scores
067up. I just don't want to lose any ground on all the positive momentum we're having with our students and so I think at the end of the day, we know whatever decisions we make will be based on what is best for the students cuz that is always number one. Of course, we got to consider the teachers, we got to consider the taxpayers, we got to consider all our employees. But the bottom line is we don't want to lose any ground on the good things we're doing for our kids. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I do not see Mr. McQuillan. I believe that he was not going to be available at this time. Um Mr. Baker District 3 any additional? You guys covered it pretty well, so Okay. Yeah, I'll let y'all keep going. So thank
068you. Sally, appreciate it. Yeah. Yes, sir. Ms. Littleton, any additional comments or priorities? I think um looking at the When we dropped our millage, was it because we had the extra funding from the COVID money, the SR money? Did that help us to keep it down? Um when the when we've dropped millage, it's been those reassessment years and um but [clears throat] that is a good point. That when that SR money went away, it did put a bit of a strain on general fund, but we were able to absorb the things that we wanted to retain out of SR, but um I hope that answers your question. >> can't. Correct. >> But now we can't. It's It's been gone too long, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um no, I don't have any deals right now, Sally. Thank
069you. Thank you, Ms. Littleton. Ms. Davenport Thank you, Ms. Wofford. I agree with Mr. what people said, just making sure people are in the right roles. Um I'm going to take some time to process all this and I may have something to bring back to the table, but I don't have anything to add at this time. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Bradley I wrote down some notes and I was listening very carefully. Um there was a part about repurposing allocations. So I'm concerned about that, especially when Ms. Crowley said how how they're looking at moving the Title 1 facilitators per school, three for ELA, and possibly three for math. Um some of the larger schools like Berkeley Middle would get more versus across elementary uh uh Cross Middle um St. Stephen Middle and um the third
070one she mentioned. But >> Bonner. Bonner, okay. Yes, ma'am. >> just a little bit concerned about the facilitators being re- configured in the sense that the numbers are a little large right now, three and three, but we'll see how it comes out. I would like to see what was versus what is when they bring the book. Um and then the last thing had to do with the certified staff, bringing them back in the classroom. I wasn't quite sure if they were going to teach or they were just going to help facilitate the learning process. So, um So, it's my understanding, for example, if we um have so many facilitators and we go to a more centralized model, those people would have options for the available jobs in the school district, which could be in the
071classroom, it could be in the district office, it could be you know, in another um place at the school. So, that would be the Title 1 facilitator and you also have a certified uh person as well. They're all-in-one. So, they could possibly go back into the classroom or still remain as the facilitator, Title 1 facilitator? Ms. Crowley, will you explain that again? Yes, ma'am. Um they're all Title 1 facilitators are certified. Okay. So, they're they they would be going back into the classroom and these would be new positions as it's it's still going to be a Title 1 facilitator, it's going to be called a Title 1 specialist. Okay. >> reason why it's different is because it would be centralized at the different at the district office and one person would serve multiple schools compared
072to right now, the majority of Title 1 facilitators serve one school. >> One school, okay. Yeah. >> the other question I had but it's been answered, that millage allocation from 55 to 46. Um I would just like to see more going back into the school supply budget so that each school would get more additional funds for their school supplies. As there's an increase in everything, school supplies per school also needs to be increased. So, those budgets need to be looked at for those schools as well. And other than that, I got a bunch of numbers. I'm I'm looking to see what the state and federal government does. Yeah, I think it's hard to um really you know, make solid decisions. Mhm. And um I just try to let people know that this is a workshop,
073so this is brainstorming, this is ideas, this is worst-case scenarios. So, you know, no one's no one's job has changed today. The board hasn't taken any action. These are brainstorming ideas of different ways we can organize and and serve kids. So, always when we have workshops and and people brainstorm ideas, sometimes it gets people um feeling uneasy, um but we're really trying to uh plan for the worst-case scenario and uh yeah, hope for the best-case scenario. Mr. Borden, want to give you an opportunity to ask any questions or communicate any priorities? Chaired, I didn't no questions. Perfect. Um and then back to uh District 9 at large uh Ms. Coates, I know I feel like you and I have had multiple things to say, so anything else that Oh, no, thank you. Thank you very
074much. Um so, thank you for the staff um for starting this process. Um it's a lot easier to decide where you're going to spend new money than it is to um tighten the belt down. We knew the growth in the county would slow. Um We've slowed to 3.9%, which is still pretty significant, healthy growth for a school district. Thank goodness we aren't uh shrinking um or below 3%. So, I do think there are some some good ideas of uh ways we can do better. Um any of the board members on this call, if you would like to call an advocate to the legislative delegation or to your representatives about um state funding, uh please feel free to exercise um that authority or ability to talk to them about the budget. Um that's certainly part of
075the relationship we have as individual board members with the legislative delegation. I'm going to go back to staff and go back to Dr. Dickson. Is there anything else that you'd like to add as we are closing up the first budget workshop? Uh not at this time. I appreciate the board's um high engagement and um your your ideas and your priorities um for the students and the um people of um Berkeley County and your commitment to being um fiscally conservative conservative and responsible to our uh taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Dickson. Thank you to Ms. Crowley. Thank you, Dr. Ling. Thank you, Ms. Abrahamson and a host of folks that support um you guys to get prepared for this. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Dickson. Um I'll now entertain a motion to adjourn.
076So moved. Second. There's a motion by Ms. Littleton, a second by Ms. Bradley to adjourn. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. All in favor, please respond by saying I. I. I. Opposed, nay. The eyes have it, 8-0. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everybody.