Clarke County board previews $255 million FY26 budget, keeps millage at 18.8 mills and adds school security staff

Clarke County School Board finance staff on Monday presented a balanced FY26 general fund budget of about $255,000,000 and recommended holding the tentative millage rate at 18.8 mills, while proposing new security and program line items that the board discussed but did not formally approve.

The budget presentation by Mr. Griner, district finance staff, said the district’s tax digest grew 8.66% and the proposed budget is “balanced” for FY26. “We are presenting a balanced budget, this year for the general fund,” Griner said. He told the board the package shows about a $13,000,000 increase over FY25 and that the district’s reserves are “around $55,000,000,” which he said equates to roughly 2.59 months of operating reserves (three months would be about $64,000,000).

Why it matters: keeping the millage rate steady does not guarantee every homeowner’s bill will remain the same because assessed values change. Griner said, “the tentative millage rate was set at 18.8 mils,” and explained that under state property-tax rules the same millage can still produce higher bills where property values rose; to collect the same total taxes as last year the millage would need to be about 17.659 mills, he said. The board did not vote on the millage or the budget at this hearing; Griner said formal approval is scheduled for the next board meeting.

Top-line budget choices and new spending: the presentation covered district-wide operating changes and proposed additions. Griner identified salary and benefits as the main drivers of the increase and said part of the rise reflects state-mandated costs, including health insurance and TRS changes; he said the district included a step increase for eligible employees.

The draft budget includes several program-level adjustments that staff explained in detail. Dr. Scott, district academics staff, said the academics and student-supports division’s FY26 budget is $8,800,000, an increase of about $261,000 from FY25. Scott said the district reduced spending on out-of-state conferences and some external consulting, shifted curriculum coaching toward in-house content coordinators, and absorbed more consumable curriculum costs that had previously been paid from ESSER funds — “over 600,000” in consumables now moves into the general fund, Scott said. The academics presentation also included a roughly $125,000 line for high-school band uniforms and a multi-year plan to refurbish kindergarten–grade science kits on a three-year cycle.

Human resources: the HR presentation (on behalf of Dan Swartz) showed a FY26 HR budget of about $567,000, up roughly $50,000 from FY25. That increase largely reflects the continuation of the special-education residency teacher apprenticeship program, which staff said costs about $248,000 and launched last year. Swartz’s team said cohort 2 recruitment produced more than 50 applicants, with a final interview list of 11 candidates.

Operations and fleet updates: Mr. Gilbert, district operations staff, reviewed a small net decrease in the operations group overall while describing varied changes across subunits. He said the district has added two electric (EV) buses, the charging station has been installed and “we’re going to roll them out on some shorter routes” this summer to test range and charging times before expanding use. When asked how the EV buses would be used, Gilbert said crews would experiment with shorter routes and monitor performance before wider deployment.

School safety proposal: Gilbert also presented a proposed expansion of school safety staffing. “The proposed budget is to offer 3 additional armed officers and 14 additional unarmed officers,” Gilbert said, noting that the unarmed officers would be placed at every elementary school and that the changes respond to parent concerns raised after a statewide school incident. If implemented as described in the presentation, the district would move to 27 unarmed officers and 17 armed officers systemwide, according to Gilbert’s figures. The board discussed the proposal during the hearing but did not take a formal vote on the staffing additions at this meeting.

What the board did: the board adopted the meeting agenda by motion (moved by Holly Hensley; seconded by Mark Evans) and carried that procedural motion unanimously. No budget or millage vote occurred; board leadership said the vote is scheduled for the next regular meeting.

Public input and next steps: staff noted the district held three millage hearings (two are the minimum required by state law) and that there was no public participation at the hearings so far. Griner said required notices and the five-year tax digest filings have been run and that the board will vote on the millage rate and budget at the next meeting. Board members asked for one slide addition to make clear that roughly $11.8 million of the $13 million increase is for salary and benefits and that about $8.5 million of that reflects state-mandated costs (health insurance and TRS changes). The board did not approve the budget or rate at this meeting.