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

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).