001Dr. Reasoner. I certify that to the best of our knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements. And only such public business matters as were identified in the motion to go into executive session for her discussed or considered in executive session. Second. A motion was made by Mrs. Morrison seconded by Mr. Goodman to return from closed session. Roll call vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We are back in session. Um 3.02 let's stand for the um pledge of allegiance and a prayer, please. Let us pray. Dear heavenly Father, thank you for just the opportunity, Lord, to be here today, Lord. Thank you for another wonderful day, Lord, that even in the midst of our trials, you're still there. Father, I just pray that uh you intercede in this meeting today
002that you give us wisdom, Lord, beyond our years, understanding beyond our training, and discernment that only comes from on high. And Father, I just pray that upon everyone who is here that the the words that are spoken today and the conversations that are had are edifying for this group, for the children and the community as a whole here, Father. We ask all these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. There was no action to be taken and from closed session, so I just wanted to let everybody know that. Uh that leads us to 3.03 adoption of the agenda. Do we need to make a Do
003we need to make changes to the agenda? No. Okay. Oh, no. Need to move to Madam Chair, I recommend adoption of the agenda. Second. A motion was made by Mr. Schnaidt and seconded by Mr. Christian to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. Motion carries. 3.04 fiscal year 2026-2027 budget work session. Thank you, Ms. Ryan. This evening, Dr. Reasoner and I will be reviewing the current fiscal year 25-26 budget, where we are with the reductions of ADM, how [music] that relates to reductions in state funding, and the reductions in expenditures to offset that loss. We will also present the fiscal year 26-27 budget proposal. As of this afternoon, we have only received a calculation tool from DOE for the governor's caboose bill that I shared with the
004board on January 14th school board meeting. We have, however, received estimates from the House and the Senate, as well as their versions of the bonus. The adopted budget in May of 2025 included an ADM of 1725 and total state funds of $20,999,776. The caboose bill was released on December 17th, and we have projected an ADM of 1660 for our final submission to the state on March 30th. As of today, our ADM is 1667. The total estimated state funds from the caboose budget is $19,883,552. Adjustments to that total include reductions for the cafeteria fund totaling $34,456, and I have also adjusted off the bonus payment since those funds can only be used for that purpose in the amount of $176,229. With those two reductions, the total revenue for the regular fund budget are $19,672,867. This is
005a projected $400,052 loss in state revenue. Dr. Reasoner will now go over the reductions and additions to expenditures to date for this year's budget. Thank you. So, first, I would like to start off by thanking Wendy Oliver, our director of finance, for her leadership with regards to our budget proposals, as well as Courtney Gunner, our payroll specialist, for assisting Mrs. Oliver with personnel, salary, and benefits figures. Their work provides us with exact figures with regards to personnel costs. I would also like to once again congratulate all of our students, teachers, support staff, administrators, and community supporters. All Buckingham County Public Schools are either designated as being on track or distinguished by the Virginia Department of Education. We do not have any schools in mandated state or federal school improvement. We are the only school division
006in Superintendent's Region 8 with such a distinction. Our employees work tirelessly to build relationships with our students to ensure that they receive the very best education and to maintain the highest of expectations for every student. This budget proposal will seek to continue to recognize and acknowledge the hard work and dedication of our employees through salary increases, as well as continued academic support and enhanced social, emotional, and mental health supports for our students. I'm going to start by focusing on the reductions and additions in our current fiscal year budget. I would like to reiterate once again that since I started as superintendent on July 1st, we have reduced our recurring personnel cost expenditures by $503,957. This reduction has been out of an immediate necessity. As you know, our September ADM dropped significantly from where our current
007FY26 budget was built on last year, which was 1725. Our current budget was created and approved prior to me starting as superintendent. After Labor Day, when we realized our ADM was going to be significantly lower than what our state revenue was budgeted for, we immediately took drastic action to reduce our expenditures and ensure the solvency of our budget and employee contracts. This process was something our school division had never done at this magnitude before. It involved asset mapping of our human resources, and we were fortunate that there were no required reduction in force of any employees. These reduced expenditures, many of which were already vacant positions, included the following. Some stipends were not renewed or reduced by 10% for a savings of $39,950. We eliminated a part-time welding teacher position for a savings of $31,224.
008We reduced a vacant pre-K special education teacher for a savings of $57,343. We eliminated the vacant human resources support staff position for a savings of $41,773. We reduced a vacant high school math teacher position based on pupil teacher ratio for a savings of $72,000. We reduced a high school Spanish teacher position for a savings of $54,644. We reduced a middle school Spanish teacher position for a savings of $54,644. We reduced two classroom teacher positions at the primary school based on pupil teacher ratio for a savings of $162,170. These two teachers were moved into Title 1 grant funded instructional positions. We reduced one classroom teacher position at the elementary school based on pupil teacher ratio for a savings of $81,085. This teacher was moved into a grant funded instructional position. We reduced the approved raise of
009hourly car drivers from $1 to 50 cents. Effective January 1st, hourly car drivers make $14.50 per hour for a savings of $20,000. We reduced the approved raise of hourly paraprofessionals from $1 to 50 cents. Effective January 1st, hourly paraprofessionals make $14.50 per hour for a savings of $30,000. We reduced one vacant school librarian at the complex with a library paraprofessional and replaced one vacant PE teacher at the complex with a PE paraprofessional. Moving forward, we are staffing the complex library [music] with one librarian and one librarian paraprofessional. We are also going to staff the complex physical education program with one PE teacher and one PE paraprofessional for a savings of $64,190. We have also taken additional measures in preparation for this uncertain state budget. We have held a 10% balance of departmental and school budget
010balances as of August 19th totaling $162,807, as well as the budget of two for two school buses and vehicles totaling $301,652. The county contributes $270,000 in revenue towards the bus purchases. This brings the total held expenditure balance to $418,459. The total amount of expenditure reductions for FY26, our current budget year, is $709,023. As you can see, we worked the problem internally with regards to our significant decline in ADM and did not request any financial assistance from the Board of Supervisors. We did have a few additional expenditures after our FY26 budget was approved last spring. Some of these expenditures occurred because we were not able to fund certain positions through state and federal grants. These additional expenditures included a CTE teacher position, an eighth grade teacher, a high school attendance clerk, a pre-K special education paraprofessional,
011a security officer, and the purchase of a replacement truck for the grounds team due to a failed engine and transmission. The total cost of these additional budget expenditures was $229,061. When you examine our loss in state revenue due to the ADM, our expenditure reductions, and our unexpected expenditure additions, the revenue balance for our FY26 budget is $79,910. We are getting closer to our March ADM timeframe, and we are comfortable with purchasing one school bus within the next week. If you are comfortable with us proceeding to do so. We will continue to monitor our final state revenues to make a final decision on the second school bus purchase. As a reminder, this is only one version of this year's state budget. Last year, the VDOE budget calculation tool was not released until early June. Do you
012have any questions regarding our current school division budget, including any reductions and additions made? Just on the school buses. Um we know we have dedicated money set aside for the buses from the from the county. I foresee, with the change in the price [clears throat] and the stuff that we got going on, I think it's incumbent upon us to stay on top of that piece of it. I know we're trying to get you up to an earlier timeframe, but uh I know that bit us in the butt for about 20,000 for two buses this this past go round, so I think it's >> We have been Yes, we have been working very closely with Mr. Harshman over the last week especially. And like I said, we are ready to proceed next week with purchasing one
013of the two buses, and hopefully the second bus a little bit later once we get more solid figures towards the very end. Now, what's what's the impact to the uh the HVAC systems that are going in, or do we know yet? The impact of the HVAC systems? Yeah. Um going into next year. >> going to the school buses, yeah. >> the school buses. The retrofits. Yes, I think we've had one at least one done. I'm going to ask Mr. Harshman to approach Mr. Harshman. Can you provide us with an update on the HVAC for the buses? Yeah, the air conditioning going into the buses I'm sorry, look close to that. Uh we do have currently one bus up at King Moore um getting AC put into it. It um I believe it's supposed to be
014done this week, early next week, and then the plan is to rotate the we'll drive the next bus up. Um and then have that one brought back. All the buses should be completed, four of them should be completed before June 30th of this year is the expectation and what I talked with King Moore about. So, we should be completed before the end of this school year, this fiscal piece. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, um Mrs. Oliver is now going to share with you the bonus portion of our state budgets. The governor's caboose budget includes a bonus payment in fiscal year 25-26 only, and it must be paid in this fiscal year. The House and Senate are providing the funding in 25-26, but include the flex flexibility for school divisions to provide the bonus
015in either fiscal year, as was approved last year. The governor's caboose budget includes $176,229 in state funding for a 2% bonus on current salaries, and does require a local match. That cost would be 329-185 based on current salaries. The local match would be 152-956. The House and the Senate are proposing a $1,500 bonus, which can be paid in either fiscal year. I have provided a few scenarios regarding this distribution based on the payments made to employees this year. $1,500 to our contracted employees and 750 for non-contracted employees would cost 528-023, and the state would fund 226-441 under each version. The local match required under each version will be $301,582. Optional proposals include $1,500 for all contracted and non-contracted totaling 571-622, and $1,500 contracted and 500 non-contracted for totaling 513-491. Because we have the flexibility to
016give the bonus in either fiscal year 26 or 27, we recommend giving the $1,500 bonus to contracted employees and 750 bonus to non-contracted employees in December of 2026, as we did this year. Are there any questions regarding the bonus portion of the state budgets? Will we do the same thing with the bonus [clears throat] as we did last year as far as having people sign for that or not? It would depend on the wording of that bonus. If it if it is set up designed specifically as a retention or a recruitment bonus, then my recommendation would be that we do so. Um if it's if the wording is not there and it's just a general bonus, then we might have a little bit of flexibility there, but I would I would want to finalize that
017decision once we see the exact final language in the um in the budget. >> Okay. The language as of right now is it's just a bonus. It's no retention attached to it. So, that would be no then if it's just a As of right now. If it's a general bonus not attached to recruitment or retention, then it would be no. Okay. That's sweet. Madam Chair, I got a question. Um was there anything in the language about giving the bonus out um at the end of the fiscal year at and at the end of June because regarding bonuses, when I read something in the news, um the there was a stipulation that it needed to be paid at the end of the fiscal year and not in December like we did last year. The governor's budget
018is only this year. It has to be paid in this year. But the House and Senate's budgets with the $1,500, so the governor's doing it says 2% has to be paid this year. House and Senate say $1,500 has can be paid in either year. So, we got two versions going on. We don't know which one will pass. But if the 1,500 passes, that would be our recommendation. Okay, because during last year, even though the board with with good intent, >> [music] >> you know, um elected to give the bonus out, >> [music] >> you know, in December, um you know, I still heard from a few constituents in my area that you know, if the governor had said to pay it out at the end of June, how come they couldn't get it in June?
019And I tried to explain to folks that we were doing it for what we thought was a good reason for the masses, for everybody involved. Cuz December is always tough on everybody. And also, the the governor's payout in last this year in June was when the school division received the money. There was language for flexibility is is what the board approved to do Okay. [music] with when it was given. But June was the date that the school system received the funds. Okay. Not when it had to be distributed. So, if we have flexibility, our recommendation would be to to to give it out in December of 2026. [music] We'll we'll address it when it comes out. >> Yeah, we'll address it when it comes out, but I yeah, we're going to have to have some
020more discussion on that because like I said, I heard from I mean, with all good intentions set aside, I heard from folks that basically said, you know, why can't we get it now? You know, so we're going to have to have a whole lot more discussion on it. Okay. Madam Chair, I yield my time. Thank you. Okay. Um we will now move to the 2026-2027 budget. Our budget proposal for FY27 is based on a projected ADM of 1650. This is a conservative number given our current ADM and our trend this school year. Our September 30th ADM was 1637. Our ADM for today is 1667. Our ADM has increased 30 students since September 30th, which is great, and we are very pleased to see that increase. However, as a reminder, our March 30th ADM last year
021was 1729. Our enrollment has trended downward in recent years, and our and our budget proposal for FY27 with an ADM of 1650 reflects that trend. Mrs. Oliver will now share with you the total state budget proposals. This comparison will be from the current budget versus the three state budget versions. As I previously stated, previously, we do not have exact figures for the House and the Senate, only estimates. We have used those estimates to develop this proposed budget. The current budget 25-26 was developed with an ADM of 1725. As discussed previously, we have experienced a loss of ADM this year, and with that, we built the 26-27 budget on 1650. The LCI, or local composite index, which is the county's factor for ability to pay, has increased .3379 to .3569. This increase lowers the state portion
022of funding and increases the required local match. The state funding for the governor's budget is $20,486,751. For the house and the senate budgets, we only have estimates based on the state's ADM of 1544. The total for the house is 20,311,397 and for the senate 19,767,594. I have reduced its version for the cafeteria fund revenue and for the house and senate versions, I added funds from the estimates reflect the ADM we are building of 1650 versus their 1544 total. We receive approximately $10,000 per student, which is an increase of $1,060,000. The house version also includes one-time flexible payment funding totaling $775,362. These funds can be used for one-time expenses which would fall under our operational non-personnel person portion of our budget. We are very hopeful that these funds will remain through the general assembly adoption allowing
023us to use them for capital improvement projects or equipment throughout the division. I have removed those one-time funds from this comparison as well. After adjustments under each version, we have additional projected revenue of 374,269 under the governor's budget, 483,553 under the house and 715,112 for senate. Do you have any questions about the total funding for each version and the adjustments I have made? So, the flex [music] payment is for any kind of What would that be? >> Capital projects or equipment. >> so we can get it. I [laughter] hope we get it. It'd be great. Okay. All right, thank you. Mhm. Facilities [clears throat] can use that. Yes, definitely. Yes. Anything else? All right. Under each version, we are required to provide a salary increase based on the funding given. The governor and house propose
024a 2% increase and the senate proposes a 3% increase. The total cost of a 2% increase and a step on each scale is 535,387. And a 3% increase and a step on the scale total 721,653. Minimum wage is also proposed to increase in January of 2027 from the current $12.77 an hour to $13.75 an hour and then again in 2028 to $15 an hour. We have included increasing the daily rate of our substitute pay for high school degrees to $98 a day or $14 an hour to help us gradually meet this requirement. That cost is $25,000 and I have included that cost in each version. We are pleased to announce that there will be no increase in our health insurance renewal for employees or employer this year. We cannot understate the importance of this to
025the school system as a whole. We appreciate all the efforts of Mr. Chuck Clements for his hard work locking us into a 0% increase. The additional required expenses for the governor and house versions are 560 560,387 and of the senate 746,653. Are there any questions regarding the required salary proposals? Dr. Reisner will now go over the proposed reductions and additions to our proposed expenditures. Okay. As we move towards next school year, we will maintain our 20 our 25-26 personnel reductions totaling 503,957. We will further reduce our FY27 personnel costs by an additional 180,559 through a continued process of streamlining positions, asset mapping, reassignments, and pupil teacher ratio analysis. As of right now, the total amount of reduced personnel expenditures for FY27 is 684,516. That amount may likely increase over time as employees resign due to
026moving or for personal reasons. Every position that becomes vacant is being analyzed from a student need perspective and cost-benefit analysis. I would now like to share with you our needs-based additional personnel expenditures as well as our needs-based additional non-personnel expenditures that we are proposing for our FY27 budget. These proposals are based on a variety of factors including employee feedback, community survey, principal requests, and student data. As a whole, these proposals are grounded heavily in support of student social and emotional well-being and mental health. For new personnel expenditures, we are proposing the following. A full-time gifted teacher to support primarily grades K through 8. The proposed cost of salary and benefits is $100,000. Providing gifted education services is a state standards of quality requirement. This position will allow us to better serve our gifted learners. A
027full-time division ITRT. ITRT stands for instructional technology resource teacher. The proposed cost of salary and benefits is $80,000. Having a full-time division ITRT is a state standards of quality requirement. This position will allow us to better support all of our teachers with their delivery of instruction. There are several new personnel expenditures we are proposing for the complex. Many of these positions would be shared between the primary and elementary schools. First, we are proposing to fund two existing reading specialists at a cost of $177,359 for salary and benefits. These reading specialists are currently being funded through the All In Virginia state grant that will expire on June 30th. We want to be able to continue both of these positions to support our teachers with tier one instruction and also support small group reading intervention in tier
028two. Second, we are proposing to fund a full-time behavioral specialist for the complex. We have applied for a state grant that would fund this position and we are waiting to see if we will receive funding. This position would directly support the mental health and well-being needs of our students. Third, we are proposing to fund a second full-time school security officer at the complex. Once again, we have applied for a state grant that would fund this position and we are waiting to see if we will receive funding. This position would help us to better support the safety and security of all students and staff members at the complex. Fourth, we are proposing to fund a full-time school psychologist intern position. This person would be in their third and final year of of their school psychology program.
029The position would serve three days at the complex, one day at the middle school, and one day at the high school per week. The school psychologist intern position would be funded through a transfer of personnel funds from a vacant paraprofessional position. This is another position to help support our students and staff with mental health, social, emotional, and special education needs. Fifth, we are proposing a full-time lead special education teacher for the complex. This position would be 11 months and would help oversee special education at both the primary and elementary schools. Having this position would provide additional time for the principals and assistant principals to support students and provide instructional leadership. The cost of salary and benefits for this position is budgeted at $80,000. Finally, we are examining the possibility of funding a math interventionist for
030the primary school which would be contingent on existing grant funding. We are also proposing additional student support at the middle school. We are proposing funding a second full-time school counselor. We have budgeted $80,000 for salary and benefits. Having a second full-time counselor at the middle school would further support the mental health needs of our students and would also be in alignment with the state standards of quality requirements for student to school counselor ratios. Finally, for the high school, we are proposing that we start a marching band program. When I surveyed the community in July and August, starting a high school marching band program was the number one initiative that the survey respondents asked that I consider implementing for Buckingham County Public Schools. We are proposing a stipend for the marching band teacher in the amount
031of $2,500. In a few minutes, we will share with you the proposed equipment costs for the band program. The total cost of our proposed needs-based additional personnel expenditures is $519,859. Do you have any questions regarding our proposed personnel needs-based expenditures for the FY27 budget? Madam Chair, I have a couple of questions if I could, please. Thank you. Um Dr. Reisner, I'm just trying [clears throat] to figure out the allocation of um the expense for the each employee like we have at the top at the district gifted teacher full-time is a hundred thousand but we look at [clears throat] a regular full-time teacher it's only eighty thousand so I'm trying to figure out where what's the twenty thousand dollar difference on them when they're both full-time and teachers. So we have a teacher that is currently
032um licensed in gifted education and if if this teacher were to move into this K8 gifted um position that would fund her current salary and benefits. Okay. >> Would you like to add anything Miss Miss Oliver? >> That's correct. It's based on a um veteran. Okay, so what happens to the position she's vacating cuz we're obviously already funding that. Are we backfilling that position? We would do so um we would talk with the um principals at the complex on how they would like to proceed with that but we've got we've got a couple of ideas that we can we can look at to do that. >> [music] >> Is is there possibility on that to um not backfill it or is it something that needs to be taken care of and that we need to
033fill? I don't know yet um >> Okay. we haven't delved deeper into that yet. I wanted to get through tonight's meeting first with you Okay. and then um that's certainly something that we can take a look at. Okay. And and >> Or do it in a in a creative more creative way. We'll have to see. >> Makes sense. And and my only at the my last question and I'll yield is um the reading specialist it looks like they are more than a standard teacher as well. They're more than eighty thousand dollars a piece. Um is that because of the same reason we have veteran teachers that are going to be using that they're coming in there so would we be backfilling them as well? They are more I think they they both have master's degrees
034that may that may be a difference there. It may be just their their current salary and benefits as well. Um backfilling them we would not be backfilling them they're already in the position we're just changing how they're being funded. They'd be they would be funded locally versus through a state grant that is expiring. Okay. As of June 30th the funding mechanism that we have for those two positions is going to be it's it's going to go away. >> So all we're doing is just we're just picking up where we're picking up the tab. >> Yes so to speak. Yes sir. And and these were mandates from the state to begin with right? That's the reason we have it? Uh they were part of the grant that the state did to I think it was two
035years ago for all in funding to help So now we have an unfunded mandate? To pick up a hundred seventy-seven thousand dollars because the state said hey let's do this for two years and then you're on your own. Well I would I I don't know. I mean I guess I guess that's the one way that you I guess you could look at it that way but we um we feel it's necessary to continue these positions um to help support reading instruction at the comp at the complex. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um now we'll move on to our non-personnel needs based expenditures and so we are proposing the following. An increase in our division technology operations fund in the amount of fifty thousand dollars. This is a required expenditure due to cost increases. This increase would
036be funded through an internal transfer of personnel funds from a vacant from a recent vacant position. An increase in our human resources department to support teacher licensure especially with regards to career switchers. We are seeking twenty thousand dollars and we are waiting to hear if our state grant application has been approved. Repair costs for the pre-K playground equipment we have budgeted eight thousand dollars for this repair. The elementary school key card entry for the cafeteria outside door is approximately ten thousand dollars. We are applying we are applying for these funds in the upcoming 2026-27 state security grant. Upgrades to the existing middle school band equipment has been budgeted for one thousand five hundred dollars and startup equipment for the high school marching band program has been budgeted for ten thousand dollars. This would offset some
037of our existing marching band equipment at the high school. And finally we need to offer a second world language in addition to Spanish. We would contract with virtual Virginia. This would impact approximately ten students at a cost of two thousand five hundred dollars. Offering a second world language is a state standards of quality requirement. The total cost of our proposed needs based additional non-personnel expenditures is [music] twenty-two thousand dollars. Do you have any questions regarding our proposed needs based expenditures for the for the FY27 budget? It seems like this is contingent upon the the one-time flexible payment as well right? So right now we're budgeting for operational fund or is it none of this is going to apply to it? >> No. Is it locally funded? >> That's for the capital Capital >> Capital improvements
038okay. So that would take care of the the walkway going across the complex if you should desire. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Um Mrs. Oliver will now share with you what the bottom line is for our needs based expenditures in terms of each state budget version. Governor Youngkin's proposed budget the House's proposed budget and the Senate's proposed budget. She will also share with you the local required match and local required effort for FY27 based on the governor's budget and our budgeted ADM of 1650. In addition she will discuss with you optional salary enhancements that you can consider and what the cost of those would be. The total adjusted revenue balance minus the total needs based expenditures proposed under the governor's budget leaves a revenue shortfall of forty-three thousand four hundred sixty-one dollars. The House shows a
039positive revenue of sixty-five thousand eight twenty-three and the Senate has a positive revenue of one hundred eleven thousand one hundred sixteen dollars. We we presented the governor's budget in January. We spoke on the increase in the required minimum local match due to the LCI increase. The total minimum revenue locally is an additional three eighty-three seven seventeen. Are there any questions with before I proceed with the salary enhancement information? Yeah I just have a have a question for a point of clarification. Um it What if the locality decides not to match it? Can they do that? Yes and no. Okay. So under the under the standards of quality the local required effort is required. Okay that's their portion of funding public education based on our local composite index based on our ability to pay as as
040a as a Buckingham County okay? And based on our student enrollment. Um there are other categorical funds within that state revenue excuse me that state budget that require a local match. Right. If we if the if the locality were to choose not to fund us at the local match then we would lose the subsequent state funding in relation to that. And then we would have to make decisions of what we would want to cut. Yeah. Okay. Okay but um most school divisions um would fund the lo both the local required effort and the local match. At a minimum. >> This is the this is the minimum. This is the minimum. This is the minimum. Three hundred eighty-three thousand seven hundred seventeen dollars is the minimum. Okay? Increase from from last year. Increase from what they
041gave us last year. Well with the LCI in mind. Because of our local composite index we are not asking for additional funds. Just the way the law is. >> because we have the local composite index is updated every two years and it was updated in December to align itself with the governor's budget. Every two years this this is done and because of that that state formula that is applied the same way to all localities in Virginia the way the math rolled out the county would need we the county would need to pay [music] three hundred eighty-three thousand seven hundred seventeen dollars more than what they gave us last year. Correct me if I'm wrong. They're already paying above what they're required [music] to pay as of last fiscal correct? What would be the difference? >>
042That is the difference. The current budget this year All I want to say is because you know when it comes to their meeting when they're doing their budget they say the same thing they're already paying us more Yeah like level funding or whatever. So this current year's budget our LCI of three three >> three three seven nine the required minimum is eight million twenty-nine thousand seven hundred ninety-eight dollars. >> Right. [music] The county actually gives us eight million eight hundred nine eight million eight hundred ninety-three thousand two hundred ninety-eight dollars. Of that is a debt service portion. We cannot that's not included in the local match requirement. So we have to reduce that of one fifty-two seven forty-two. So the total that they're giving us for towards the LCI right now is eight million seven
043hundred forty thousand five fifty-six. Next year's budget. Now you but you need to remember this is governor's budget only. So if if any of these others get adopted this three eighty-three number will change up or down depending on It also changes per ADM. If we go up one more student it's going to change. If we go down a student, it's going to change. It's all those factors are in this number. So, next year, the number I'm giving you is the LCI of the 3569 1658 ADM, the total is 9,124,273. That is a difference from what they're giving us right now of the 383717. Got it. Now, the debt service, has that been completed then? That debt service is a um loan that we have through Honeywell. And no, that's got one more year, I think.
044Okay. I think it's one more year. All right. Thank you. Mhm. Any other questions before we move on? No, ma'am. No. No, thank you. I I I just wanted to make sure that that was mentioned that this some of this is beyond our control. So. Dr. Reeder presented scale proposals early in this year based on an average salary study in region 8 compared to Buckingham salary scales, focusing mainly on teachers, paras, and bus drivers. I have included the totals from the from that study, and you also have an actual scale comparison with total differences and percentages per step. I did not include the bus drivers. Their additional funding needed to reach the average was under $2,000. And with any of the required salary increases from the state, that would put them above the average in
045the region. I was also asked to include last year's salary committee teacher scale options one and two. I have provided actual costs with benefits for those scales based on the committee's proposals increases per step and applied those to this year's salary scales. Please note that on each scale, the red steps will not meet any of the state's required salary increases. If the board proceeds with these versions, we will need to refigure the cost based on the state salary increase to ensure that each step meets that requirement. I have also included the cost of a 4% salary increase and step. The total cost for each of the following are teacher scale to average $1,245,637. Para scale to average $86,528. Salary committee option one $1,040,000 and $79. Salary committee option two $780,034. And a 4% salary increase
046and step would be $917,556. Okay. Uh the Board of Supervisors has scheduled our joint budget work session on Wednesday, March 18th at 6:00 p.m. At that time, we will present our proposed budget for the 2026-2027 school year. So, this concludes our our 26-27 budget proposal items, and we are open to further discussion and questions at this time. Uh just to clarify, Wednesday, March 18th at 6:00 p.m. Mhm. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes. We're going to be busy that week. Yes, ma'am. And the looks like the the the salary changes that were captured were for one-time max adjustment across the scalar the salary scale, not the phased approach that had been discussed previously, correct? Correct. So, go back over what you said about um I think you were saying something about the salary scale where it was
047not going to meet something. So, these those salary scales were developed The average ones were developed earlier in the year based on our current salaries. And if the state gives a raise, so the figures that you all have been working with, the 1.245, if the state gives a raise in any portion, there's some levels that won't with the $1.245 million will not meet that. So, we would have to increase that number for those steps. I just wanted you to see that these these scales would have to be amended, and there would be additional cost to whatever the state's share of of um the raise is. >> This is a baseline snapshot, but >> It is. Mhm. Yeah, I think I think two was the one we were checking trying to get to, wasn't it? Capping
048out at 30. And it looks like the state's going to take care of the paras for us because we were trying to shoot for $15 an hour regardless but for the paras along the way when we were doing the committee, if I'm not mistaken. Well, the comparison for the paras is the percentages are well over what the state's going to give. Sure. If you It doesn't matter. So, which positions are paying less than $15 now? It's the paras. Well, not all of them. The only thing like less than 15 is just the substitutes for >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, the [snorts] daily rate is less than 15 an hour. So, you're adjusting that so that it will be I mean, we are doing that. The for next year, it the minimum wage is only 1377. So,
049all of our hourly rates will be fine other than the high school Yeah, the 28 is what they're trying Okay. So, the 28 is the high school subs. But all of our contract employees make over $15 an hour. Okay. And our drivers are not contracted, right? Bus drivers are. Bus drivers, but not the car drivers are not, right? And they're at 1450, right? They're 1450, right. Um are van drivers considered car drivers? >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. And that's because they don't need a CDL, I'm assuming. Yeah. Okay. So, the governor's is 2% plus a step, correct? 2%. We are including the step. Okay. Okay. All of our options include a step. My concern about the governor's budget is that 2% by the time everyone else raises their teacher pay, we're going to be right back
050here next year doing the exact same thing because we won't we will not have moved out of the cellar as far as what we're paying our teachers as well as other staff, but but the teachers, of course, is what we've heard the most about. If we continue to be vigilant with examining every vacant position as it becomes available based on our pupil-teacher ratio analysis and asset mapping, over time, we will certainly Right. make significant progress. We've made progress and will continue to do so, um but um I I I understand what you're saying. So, do we need action to give them something to go on here tonight? So, what were y'all That's what you're asking for, I'm assuming. Um I I think I think I I can do that, but I would I mean, make
051the motion to do that, but I do have a question. If we go to It seems like to get to the teacher the regional average, which is what we were trying we've been trying to do for the last 2 months now, um we're we're going to have a shortfall because we just the money's not there yet, right? But the only way to get the money there would have been to have combined um the two schools down on 20 Well, one of the ways that would have assisted in a major way would have been to combine the schools down on 20 and then through either attrition or re- uh reallocation of some of those resources, our teacher and administrative resources, um you know, find you know, fill backfill other positions, but I if that's the if
052that's one of the major contributor contributors to the money that we need to find, I think that that puts us in a pretty bad spot to try to be able to do the at regional average as much as I would like to do so. Um but can at the 4% um Ms. Oliver, is at the 4% plus a step, do you feel confident we can do that next year? So, what we would do is if you go back to um page three, Right. where the options for salaries, they required, Mhm. so we have $374,000 governor, 483 house, 715 senate. So, we would remove all the S options there and we and insert instead of 560 387 and 5 746 6 653, we would put in the 4% cost of 917 556. Okay. With the additional
053383 717 that were we were required to get from this from the county, yes, we could fund that locally. Okay. Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the 4% salary increase plus step on the current scales with the option that if the wheels run off the budget, we may have to we may have to look at it again, but based on the information that we currently have, I think that that would be my motion. Okay, so that's the last >> That's the last one. Second. >> [clears throat] >> A motion's been made by Mr. Christian and seconded by Mr. Goodman to approve the governor's budget with the 4% salary increase and step current scales contracted employees as shown. All those in favor or any questions on the motion? All those in favor, please raise your
054hand. >> have Do you have something? Uh no, I was going to only going to ask for clarification that the 4% covers all employees and not just contracted versus non-contracted. >> Yeah. It's contracted only. That's only contracted. Only contracted? Okay. Uh well, hold on cuz I was thinking that was all. So, what what does that figure do if we do non-contracted as well? How much does that go up? >> Um I would have Everyone makes a different hourly rate, so we'd have to go back to to figure that. Well, let me ask this. So, would they get any kind of increase? Not for this proposal, no. Okay. See, I have a problem with that because um uh it seems like and and I understand difference between contracted and non-contracted, but it seems like to me
055that the non-contracted employees that we have, we're losing a lot of them, too, but they are always getting potatoes taken off of their plate. So, and and they need to have something. So, what do you mean they're getting What do you mean they're getting stuff taken off their plate? >> always not getting as much in a pay raise as everybody else is getting a pay raise. >> not losing it, they're just not getting additional, which is Okay, I just want to make sure I understand. So, I anticipate that >> [clears throat] >> there may be some additional personnel that will leave through personal As I stated, through personal reasons or relocation that will then their positions may or may not be filled depending on specific people teacher ratio analysis and that there that um capturing
056that personnel revenue, you know, that that that money could then be reallocated to help support some other things, which could be that. I I don't know, but um at this moment, I mean, we we we only know what we know as absolute certainty and that's regarding our resignations and our retirements. And so, we've given you that information. I think it's $180,000 and some change of what of what we know at this moment. Um but we do anticipate there being some additional um ins and outs turn and employees exiting and so on and so forth, so there might be some flexibility there. Well, we we we have the mandated We have the mandated raises that'll impact them as well for the next 2 to 3 years. >> the board gave the 50 cents to those employees
057um in January. And so, and then it is going to $15 an hour in 2028. But what I was going to say was that cost to do the 50 cents, it's about 55 employees, it was around $50,000. So, if the board wants to still consider that, we sure we can because you will adopt your scales in July. So, between now and July, if whatever change we have to our budget internally, we can definitely change those scales um moving forward. And with these these same people could get a bonus, too, though, right? >> They are included in the bonus, yes. >> included in the bonus. Yes, they are included in the bonus. Right. So, to clarify, we've got the the motion, we've got the second, but everything in the needs-based additional expenditures were things that the
058board has already talked about for probably the last year and a half, 2 plus years with input from from teachers and everything anyway. Um when we went down and had the the meeting with the the complex, some of the same stuff that's on here that had already been drafted was spoken to as well. We got the surveys back and everything spoke to this as well. That being said, we know we have what, more students and teachers in in the complex than we have at the middle school and high school separately, not combined, but separately. So, that's a that's over 50% of the input for the school system as far as what the needs based are for that. Um and we're covering different schools as well. So, the priority the priority seems to have shifted from
0592 years ago for the salary scales towards more support. And so, this would reflect that that support that's that's been requested of us. So, we've done both. I mean, yes, you're absolutely right. We are providing additional support where it's needed and where it's been requested. We're also enhancing salaries. I mean, there is no proposal from the state that I'm aware of at this moment that speaks to a 4% increase plus step. So, we're doing more than what the state >> State required. is giving is giving us in terms of their portion of of the budget. So, I feel very positive about what we what we've been able to do um primarily because we've been um good stewards of the of the money of of watching of carefully analyzing everything and um making reductions where we
060can, and I think that is providing us with an opportunity to enhance our employees' salaries because of that. Concur. Uh I I understand that aspect of it, but we still will have a gap and that's all I'm alluding to is we will still have a gap in what's on our our scales right now from our our new teachers all the way through our 40-year mark or whatever it is, where we have, you know, right now we're getting a raise plus we're getting a step increase. However, um that may not mean we're getting another step next year. May not mean because the salary scales have not we're not changing anything. They're going to get a one-time raise, hopefully again, but at the end of the day, it's a one-time raise. They're going to get a bump.
061You know, at the base level, you're looking at roughly $2,500 per year. Uh on up, right? So, when you're looking at the salary scale though, you're still going to see the disparity between the 5-year, the 15-year and the gaps. So, we're not going to address that because we're identifying shortfalls within the structure to help support teachers. I just want everybody to be aware of that because that was one of the reasons the committee was stood up was to address the salary scale shortfall. That being said, I have no problem with this, but I still have a problem. Well, we still have a problem. Yeah, I I I would love to be able to see us rework our completely, you know, salary, but salary scale. Um I don't want us to for This is This is
062just me, one person. We can't do the whole thing. We've already got the numbers. We've already said it. We've already It's we know this. I mean, everybody knows it. We can't just drop it 1.5 because it could be carried over from year to year. We we can't. However, I think making adjustment to the scale starting with phase one where there's a 30-year and up down to 30 years like we talked about or 25 to and up and adjusting those scales right there, finalizing those numbers or looking at those numbers and seeing where we're at. If it's 500,000, if it's 400,000, then is it possible for us to pull the trigger on those those possibilities? Only because we've been pushing for it that the staff has been pushing for it. Um and I would like to
063see that, honestly. It's What What does it look like? Over 30 years, we got 10 to 12, maybe 15 employees tops. Over 30 years. If we drop that down to the 30-year max that was proposed and agreed upon by the board and the committee, if we did that in phase one, what would it look like financially? What would it look like? Because if there's a possibility that we can plug in support and support some of the structure changes we want to make within the school system, we're making progress. We won't get it done in the next 2 years. I got I got that, but what can we do? What are the options? And I think to support that is that, you know, we're we're using the 300,000 that we were expecting the insurance to go
064up that we now is at zero. Well, that's a one-time savings. Right. Right. So, we we're we're already um issuing some risk or absorbing some risk on this um because we're using that $300,000 for this. So, that'll be something next year if it makes the figures up, it's a big problem. There's always the option, and and this is a lot of work on our part, but we would certainly do this, of us issuing contracts in May, okay? And then when we see what our final staffing looks like in terms of who is returning next year, we could rework the budget again on our you know, local our local portion and then reissue con I mean, it's a possibility. We That's a lot of work, but we could do it if we if we chose to
065go that route. I feel like that's pretty late, though. It would be, but we we don't know how much additional revenue we might have based on um based on retirements and resignations that we don't know yet. You know, we know some we we we know definitely what we have. What we we know what we know that's been approved thus far. >> Sure. But there's additional uncertainty out there in terms of of employees who who may who may choose to move or or what have you, stay home with their child or whatever their their situation is. There There's no >> impact some some money that we would then have to be able to have some conversations around. There no downside to presenting the information. All right, we will always share with you. You you will know
066what our Well, it's not it's not for us. It's for for them. This this is >> Absolutely. We will we will share it um and if we wanted to rework some things, we we certainly could do that. Any other questions? Madam Chair, well, just one last thing. I mean, I stay with the motion that I made, but I do I would also like to say that um it is extremely important to me um and obviously others on the board that we don't leave our non-contracted employees behind on this. So, what we need to be making sure that we're um vigilant on looking for those extra dollars to assist them as well. Yes. And the problem with most of those is that percentage increases don't have any impact um on a $15 employee, right? I mean,
067it doesn't change how much gas they're putting in their car. So, um that that may have to be um looked at a little differently as a flat rate, which is sort of what we did last time as opposed to that. So, just just my thoughts on it. Well, we have a motion on the table. Um any other questions on it? All those in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. Motion carries. Okay. Do we need a motion for the salary piece or just want to do the research and bring it to one of the meetings later down the road? I would say they would just We will We have directed them to tell you >> [laughter] >> Yeah, you'll you'll receive an update every month of where we are with um >> [laughter] >> revenue.
068Thank you. Yes. Okay, and I want to speak to unification. We are accredited after several years and change will affect our students, families, and school personnel. We definitely don't want to go backwards since we have worked so hard to accomplish this. Accreditation is not the only thing that we strive for, but it is a goal that we have strived to attain and we can't take that for granted because it shows that we are moving in the right direction. The four most important things to consider in this process are our students' well-being, strong instruction that continuously improves, our school community who trust and need a sense of belonging, and last but not least, our staff for their stability and care for each and every student that we have been given the gift of teaching. My fear
069is that we may have already lost trust with our teachers, staff, and support because of the fear of the unknown in this venture into exploring the unifying of the two schools. My hope is that we can earn back that trust by not unifying the schools at this time. But if it was ever feasible, approach it with a phased-in approach over several years to build on shared resources, instructional alignment, and clarity for all that are affected. Our children are the number one priority of this school board. We are all here for their education, safety, and overall well-being. And while I want to speak to the passion that I heard the other day, it was wonderful. I mean, really, because they're in it. They're just like that thing that said all in, they're all in. So, I
070applaud them for that and I appreciate their willingness to talk because, you know, sometimes that you don't want to say stuff cuz you might get a little bit emotional, but they did really good and we're not going to unify the school. You could feel the the passion. >> Yes, they did. Madam Chair, could I share as well? Sure. I had some some wonderful conversations with some people and I do I just got to say I mean I just mean y'all. I really do. I really liked hearing all the up encouraging words from you teachers and and the staff, you know. So, I just appreciate that. Thank y'all very much. It made a difference. I just want to let you know your voice made a difference. So, please yeah, and uh shout it from the rooftops
071that we're not going to unify. >> [laughter] >> Put it on Facebook. Everybody else does. And so, if nothing else is to come before the board, we are adjourned. Thank you.