White County board hears $42.3M 2025–26 budget proposal; raises, bonuses and director pay among open questions

White County school and finance officials presented a proposed general-purpose budget for fiscal year 2025–26 totaling about $42.3 million at a May 27 board work session. Superintendent and finance staff outlined revenue pressures from enrollment declines and a county property reassessment, then reviewed proposed pay increases and program-level costs.

Why it matters: the proposal shows a roughly $4.2 million gap between estimated expenditures and projected revenue for 2025–26. Board members discussed how raises, one-time bonuses and rising benefits could add pressure to reserves and considered which elements the board might act on when it votes on the budget in June.

Revenue and reassessment: Director of Schools (Mister Dee) and finance staff said the district has lost roughly 400 students since 2016, a change they estimated reduces TISA funding by about $2.8 million compared with that earlier period. Finance staff explained a county reassessment will likely change the certified tax rate and noted county commissioners will set the final tax rate in June.

Salaries and bonuses: The proposal includes a $1,625 increase for licensed staff and a 2% across‑the‑board raise for support staff. The state’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program and related one‑time teacher bonuses were discussed: the budget contains two components—state‑defined eligible licensed staff (291 personnel in district accounting) and 30 additional licensed employees (administrators and school psychologists) that the district placed in the budget for board consideration. Board members asked whether the board should extend a $2,000 one‑time bonus beyond the state‑eligible employees to other licensed staff or to non‑licensed support staff; superintendent and staff provided estimates for the additional cost and said a full $2,000 for all non‑licensed staff would add roughly $500,000+ to the payroll line.

Director pay: The board chair explained he instructed staff to include a placeholder of $120,000 for the director of schools’ salary in the proposed budget to align with comparable districts and to reflect contracted annual increases; he said the figure came from a review of similarly sized districts and includes a 2.5% annual adjustment. The director did not request the figure and said he would provide additional benchmarking information for the board’s Thursday meeting.

Fund balance and pressures: Budget schedules show a projected deficit of about $4.2 million for 2025–26; presenters said the district has historically conservatively estimated expenses and typically ended up with better-than-expected results, but they warned continued declines in enrollment and rising benefits could force program or personnel cuts in future years. Special education costs were highlighted as a pressure point: district staff noted some SPED positions and services are funded at federal ratios that do not fully cover local needs and that general‑purpose funds have absorbed the gap in recent years.

Capital and other items: Capital outlay was reduced by more than $100,000 from the prior proposed budget. The proposal budgets for three propane-fueled buses (about $150,000 each) under a grant program, and staff discussed the trade-offs among conventional, propane and electric buses.

Process and next steps: The presentation was informational. Board members flagged two items for possible action or amendment at the formal meeting on Thursday: (1) whether to extend one‑time $2,000 payments to non‑licensed staff in addition to licensed employees; and (2) the director’s salary line. The board will consider amendments and vote on the final budget at its next regular meeting in June.