Bibb County board adopts Option C budget, removes proposed raises and reclassifications

The Bibb County Board of Education voted 7-1 to adopt Option C, a budget plan that removes proposed 3% certified raises and several proposed reclassifications and positions, following extended discussion about a projected budget shortfall and staffing priorities.

School finance staff presented three budget options and said they had identified roughly $973,520 in reductions while seeking about $307,852 in targeted requests, including a K–5 ELA coordinator and a truancy specialist. “We have not asked for new money,” the budget presenter said during the meeting, describing the package as fiscally restrained and aligned with the district’s literacy and attendance priorities.

The nut graf: the board’s choice of Option C reduces near-term spending but also removes salary increases and reclassifications the district’s leadership argued were needed to meet state literacy mandates and to address chronic absenteeism. Board members who opposed the reclassifications said the district must be more cautious because of a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall.

School staff summarized the financial context: the district reported an estimated $1.6 million decrease in revenue this year and cited a roughly $9 million reduction tied to equalization and QPD funding, of which about $4.2 million was associated with the state health‑benefit factor for certified employees. Staff also said the district has absorbed unfunded state mandates totaling about $8.3 million and identified a $3 million cost to support a 1:1 technology initiative. Presenters noted the district has historically restored unspent appropriations to the general fund and cited roughly $89.8 million of returned funds over the past decade.

Board discussion focused on two lines of concern: fiscal prudence in the face of what one board member described as a roughly $21 million budget hole, and the district’s operational need to target K–5 literacy and chronic absenteeism. One board member said, “We are in the hole $21,000,000,” and argued that the district should avoid adding ongoing expenses while the fund balance is projected to decline in coming years.

Staff described how Option A, B and C differ: Option A included some reductions but retained the requested reclassifications and a 3% certified increase; Option B would fund two positions (a K–5 ELA coordinator and a truancy specialist) while reallocating other duties; Option C removed the requested positions and the 3% raises. Presenters said they moved approximately 5.5 positions to federal funding this year, accounting for part of the reductions.

After debate and a failed amendment earlier in the meeting, a motion to adopt Option C was put to the board. The board chair announced the tally as seven in favor and one opposed; the board adopted Option C. The transcript does not record the names of the motion’s mover and seconder.

The board and staff also discussed next steps: the district will proceed to public hearings in June, and staff said that if the formal budget adoption is delayed they would adopt a temporary spending resolution until the final budget is approved. Staff emphasized that some final fund‑balance numbers will not be available until July or August, when year‑end accounting and audits are completed.

The decision narrows near‑term staffing and pay changes while leaving open future budget adjustments; board members asked staff to continue identifying savings and to report back with updated fund‑balance projections.