[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6057471,"mediaKeyId","3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29","parentId",3306275,"title","District projects small enrollment shifts; choice seats, QBE changes and voucher law flagged as future risk","audioSeconds",944,"startMs",1840000,"endMs",2784000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29&start=1840&end=2784","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29/thumbnail_1840000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6057471/Georgia/District-projects-small-enrollment-shifts-choice-seats-QBE-changes-and-voucher-law-flagged-as-future-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057471-adc55be7eda1913ac9e30e9317973857/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140896&Signature=JFnhpoMg0QEyh8lp3TNcgelzr9nj2cRFYvCfe-xMkmj~srkARcwJAjpVE51CSKBM-4YE4L49civ0fSdsEb-qRXUhFKyyMuBt1SrKjC0n0JgTkQzN6QprMcTE5u~f7nuotmGlhBk7QKDQ3B00SSXcXxOOX2iw8bbNg0tnzOiKbKU-AE40415K8K0nbjehDkV9iFSWEszpN~Z90FKKYdeg6HXhxkhnWt761CdFHAm8oVqqsls795sufmo1uWBj9P6EkutUvCSUTmYOCPCXgySl4AkBHGEFVz5JckkfdqM~s-~j1Fb8K9JIvy2ZX-tyZIkw-0sLSVTC1s0dtgTAbuguLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-14T12:50:13Z","article","District staff and board members discussed enrollment projections, staffing allocation rules for choice programs and the potential future impact of a state voucher bill.

Paige Cooley, presenting budget and staffing projections, explained that earned FTE rose by 22 positions under the state QBE calculation despite overall district enrollment declines; the additional positions were attributed to increases in gifted, special‑education and vocational categories. “We are earning it because we have, like, more kids in gifted, which earns more per person. We have some we got some more special ed kids… and then we also got some more vocational,” Cooley said.

Board members asked for and received clarification on how staffing allocations are compiled: the staffing summary in the preliminary budget includes all school‑based positions (teachers, counselors, clerks and other site staff). Staff said principals receive site allocations and then vet those numbers locally; the district reconciles and finalizes staffing during the first 10 days of school, and schools may request above‑allotment positions through an established process.

On choice programs, staff said projections account for capacity (slots) at choice sites rather than principal waiting lists, and that when one school grows another may shrink because student movement within the district often transfers enrollment rather than adding new students overall. Mr. Beller (district assignment staff) explained that schools set the number of seats for their choice programs and staff use those capacity figures in allocations.

Board members asked about a recent state voucher measure providing roughly $6,500 per eligible student. Staff said eligibility rules require a student to have previously attended a public school to qualify and that most private‑school tuitions exceed the voucher amount; staff therefore estimated the voucher would be a larger concern in future years than for the coming year but acknowledged it is a material unknown. “I think it is going to possibly hurt us… I think it will become more pertinent in the future,” one board member said during the discussion.

The committee discussed reconciliations, above‑allotment processes and the role of choice capacity; no policy changes were adopted. Staff agreed to provide more detailed staffing and enrollment spreadsheets privately and to follow up on the extent to which choice non‑selection leads families to leave the district.

Board member Austin Sprague also asked staff to research CTAE (career/technical) program alignments that could support pool operations (for example, hospitality/recreation certifications and energy systems), and staff agreed to follow up.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Finance Advisory Committee - May 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff explained how the district models enrollment, allocates staffing to school choice programs and earned QBE positions, and said the recently passed voucher bill (approx. $6,500 per eligible student) could reduce enrollment in future years though not necessarily next school year.","taxTitle","Savannah-Chatham County, School Districts, Georgia","taxId",15361,"location","Georgia","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6057476,"District details condition and cost of four school pools; staff urges city partnership or hold plan pending SPLOST",2066,4533000,6599000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29&start=4533&end=6599","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29/thumbnail_4533000.jpg","/articles/6057476/Georgia/District-details-condition-and-cost-of-four-school-pools-staff-urges-city-partnership-or-hold-plan-pending-SPLOST","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057476-22f851b69d675c48ba5a3a45982ab556/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140896&Signature=Ik0wZNIuie5Ve7wAkVCKtXgYU3XDDwbj-k8ERWYhcgs6F09UpA~zGrG~L39M5rrh9LvjmN3wvgseh~J~0AcRHApS-N25eOeWHnT3kpHwZKvrMD1XLkxsxW5nb1zxVa805EGTiEkeYCH~kxIGm3NsgdTxQT9elv6Z3hb5UNhvR9I8o4zMjWuF00ygMhWx3xXsXJziJZDCO0NlZRSTCRsWQFsBEqgOjAKegz97SC~5eUpdoIGbum8Xs0mo~tXLwTd3JfITWm8r2Squ-URPMzr~HtsGDIxbnN5aIeYF00Yjw0u-ll3l1ZhX4YxTTgbnD73F0xKl57DBvTQiHtF962OtBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","District staff told the finance committee that four district pools need repair and that options range from city partnership to a hold‑pattern pending broader public funding votes.

Miss Davidson, a district facilities staff member, said the district owns four pools — Brock, Haven and Schuman (elementary sites) and Jenkins (high school) — and described significant maintenance and safety problems at three sites. “We currently have some significant challenges with the conditions of 3 of our 4 pools,” Davidson said, showing photos and noting that Haven fills with rain when drained and that some pools reach 15 feet in depth, raising liability concerns.

The pool discussion is consequential because fixing and operating the sites would require a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar investment and ongoing operating costs; the district asked the board whether to budget for repairs, seek city/county partnership, or pause while the city explores a SPLOST referendum.

Davidson provided line items and rough estimates: repairs and systems work for the two primary pools were estimated in the range of about $600,000 to $1 million total; staff estimated roughly $975,000 to bring Brock and Haven to operating condition and listed per‑pool estimates that included about $300,000 for draining/clean/replace plaster, roughly $150,000 for pumps/chlorinators/plumbing, and annual maintenance on the order of $102,000 per site (presenters also cited an $8,500/month operating figure). Seasonal lifeguard wages were estimated at $50,000–$75,000 per site depending on length of season; Davidson noted the estimate did not yet include health‑department certification, utilities, or additional liability insurance costs.

The district currently has one pool in the best condition (Jenkins), which staff said could be opened quickly pending board approval and a lifeguard contract with a third‑party operator. Staff said Jenkins had received prior investment and could open as soon as Memorial Day if the board approved contracting for lifeguards and operations; the other pools require substantial capital work before safe public use.

Staff presented several options for Brock and Haven: continue advocacy and negotiation with the city to resume day‑to‑day management; pursue lease or sale to a third party (with legal counsel cautioning about restricting future use if sold without covenants); or delay inclusion of those pools in the FY26 budget while the district explores options and awaits city outreach, including a potential SPLOST referendum. Several board members urged that the city be invited back to the table to share responsibility; others warned about the liability of leaving empty, deep pools uncovered and asked staff to seek a liability‑insurance quote before committing funds.

Board members and staff also discussed alternatives such as partnering with third‑party operators for lifeguard staffing and investigating CTAE (career and technical education) program alignments that could support pool operations (for example, hospitality or recreation tracks and certifications). No formal decision was reached at the meeting; staff said they will pursue the planned May 27 city meeting, try to obtain insurance quotes and cost breakdowns, and return to the board with options for the June timeline.","Presenters described safety, maintenance and cost issues for four school pools — Jenkins, Brock, Schuman and Haven — and outlined options including partnership with the city, lease/sale or holding action while the city considers SPLOST funding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6057481,"Savannah‑Chatham budget presenters lay out FY26 choices: vacancy factor, fund balance, millage and ROI review",7814,189000,8003000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29&start=189&end=8003","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3306275-e0f48992f3d1f1cdf82a3fb3e8e80d29/thumbnail_189000.jpg","/articles/6057481/Georgia/SavannahChatham-budget-presenters-lay-out-FY26-choices-vacancy-factor-fund-balance-millage-and-ROI-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057481-c87c8435174e1a78dd1295e7f84304e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140896&Signature=Vcvy23qDh85EAcX1Sin6D3KErv-cPsR-p9pAGvDvIwgKO8bSIaMUCd59dNSuyffNctSNNI4RqRat1XvblOuEyr3TziBPJeQ6RAoBw-qZrdhIX-3230~ilv4HqSpS5k5IlhJ4~tlnZhWVsINPfU3nLgnpLiBNgsZh58plwPy2R6TmBBhPNHLi9WMafrXK2DtZJ21k4ikejTYfC1~Gn8CBf0SOrmGlhlwMjmV8saKuua2~wNnn9HQrnAobiHlBHhkyzsl2FonLunr6SdBkSwq3P2rqVeFJ5yFoFV~SUXMKL07Rit8JFyTdN~FeoZjpBdejYJBorHQk~tzPjcVQS7Vq0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Savannah‑Chatham County School District finance team on Tuesday laid out revenue projections, planned reductions and options for the fiscal 2026 budget, asking the board for guidance on whether to use fund balance, reduce the millage rate or reallocate program investments.

Superintendent Dr. Watts opened the presentation by saying the team was balancing multiple pressures: “we continue to be driven by purpose, guided by our priorities, and obviously, we want to be anchored in the responsibility we have to students, staff, and the community.” The slide presentation that followed quantified the tradeoffs staff will bring back to the board in June.

The presentation matters because the district is projecting a large general fund budget and several sizable uncertainties — a missing final property tax digest, an unclear federal funding outlook and a growing gap between budgeted salaries and actual pay when positions go unfilled. Staff asked the board whether the district should preserve a larger fund balance as insurance, reduce the millage rate to return money to taxpayers, or invest additional dollars in programs and compensation.

Staff said the general fund projection shown to the committee is about $665 million in revenues, a year‑over‑year increase of roughly $45.9 million driven primarily by local digest growth (a $36.9 million local increase was modeled under a 10% digest growth assumption) and a preliminary state increase of roughly $9 million. Federal revenue in the general fund was left flat in the model; staff noted uncertainty about federal support beyond grant-funded programs.

Paige Cooley, a district finance staff member, gave the revenue breakdown and explained options if federal support shifts: “Worst case scenario would be a reduction in force. We do have some other means that we could use. We could do a hiring freeze. We could do a reduction of hours. We could do furlough pay… and we could also do freezing of pay.” Cooley also walked the committee through per‑pupil calculations, noting the district’s 2024 general‑fund cost per pupil was $13,005.29 and reminding members that most per‑pupil spending is compensation.

Cooley and other staff outlined proposed reductions and levers: the budget draft includes $24.5 million of program reductions, $12.5 million in central office reductions and a proposed $10 million increase to the vacancy factor (the budgeted allowance to reflect positions expected to remain unfilled during the year). The vacancy factor proposal would raise the budgeted vacancy allowance to about $19 million for FY26; staff emphasized the district had seen much larger realized salary savings in prior years because vacancies were higher than the budgeted factor.

On fund balance, staff reported an unassigned fund balance of $145.7 million under current assumptions. Board policy DCL requires a minimum of two months of budgeted expenditures (about $110.6 million) and sets a practical target of three months ($166.0 million); under the presented numbers the district would be about $20.2 million short of the three‑month target but well under the five‑month maximum ($276.7 million). Staff proposed a modest $1.2 million contribution to fund balance in the FY26 draft but flagged that a portion of textbook purchasing now planned across years will be moved to a special revenue fund, which will affect the apparent contribution.

Staff presented three high‑level options tied to the unknown property tax digest: (a) with the modeled digest growth the budget could support a 0.05 mill rollback-equivalent contribution to fund balance, (b) a weaker digest (for example +8%) would require either additional use of fund balance or a 0.35‑mill increase to balance, and (c) stronger digest growth would create room for added program investment or a millage rollback (staff gave 0.42 mills as an illustrative equivalent for a particular revenue swing). Multiple board members said they were reluctant to increase the millage rate and generally preferred adding to fund balance while they continued the ROI analysis.

Miss Taylor, who is leading the ROI/program‑inventory work, told the committee the district had completed a district‑wide program inventory and flagged 48 programs for deeper review. “ROI helps ensure that our financial decisions are data informed, impact focused, and aligned to our strategic priorities,” Taylor said. Staff described a multi‑step process that will add quantitative metrics and qualitative measures before any program is discontinued; no program was stopped solely based on the inventory during this presentation.

Staff also listed proposed FY26 investments for board consideration, including high‑dosage tutoring, differentiated school supports, a postsecondary‑readiness platform, a web‑based communications platform and compensation adjustments (a suggested longevity step, compensation‑scale adjustments and a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment). Accountability metrics — for example, number of tutoring sessions delivered, assessment growth, retention rates and custodial satisfaction scores — were proposed to accompany each investment.

No budget motion or millage decision was made during the meeting; the committee heard the presentation and provided direction. Staff said the property tax digest from the assessor’s office remains pending, and they will return with refined scenarios and follow‑up materials in the two weeks before the June 4 vote. The chair and several board members urged conservative planning, with many expressing a preference to bolster fund balance and advance the ROI work before committing new ongoing program investments.

Board procedural notes: the meeting opened with unanimous committee approval of the agenda (motion by Miss Campbell, second Miss Grabowski) and unanimous approval of the April minutes (motion by Miss Grabowski, second Miss Campbell).","District staff presented FY26 revenue and expenditure projections, proposed a higher vacancy factor and program-inventory ROI process, and outlined millage options tied to uncertain property digest and federal funding; no final budget votes were taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

District projects small enrollment shifts; choice seats, QBE changes and voucher law flagged as future risk

District details condition and cost of four school pools; staff urges city partnership or hold plan pending SPLOST

Savannah‑Chatham budget presenters lay out FY26 choices: vacancy factor, fund balance, millage and ROI review