Anderson 5 reviews 2025–26 budget options as state and federal funding remain uncertain

Anderson County School District 5 finance staff presented a draft 2025–26 budget to the Board of Trustees Thursday and asked the board to give direction on a set of options that would be used to prepare the formal first reading next week.

The presentation stressed that several items still depend on pending state actions: whether a proposed health-insurance increase will be applied to employers or employees, and the fate of a state “vote tax” bill that could reduce district revenue. Presenter (budget staff) said, “My philosophy from here for you at the board will all I will always take the most aggressive route, expense wise for you. So I'm gonna give you worst case scenario.”

Why it matters: the presentation showed a range of cost scenarios that would materially change next year’s bottom line. District staff flagged roughly $300,000 in employer-side health insurance costs under the senate proposal (a seven‑month cost in their payroll timing) and a separate possible revenue hit of about $700,000 if the tax bill described at the state level moves forward. Staff presented staffing and program choices meant to keep the district solvent under worse-case assumptions while allowing the board to pare back if more favorable state decisions arrive.

Most important budget items and options

- Health insurance: Two legislative versions differ. The House version would place a 4.6% increase on employees; the Senate version would place it on employers. Staff modeled the employer-side outcome and showed a roughly $350,000, seven‑month employer cost in the draft. The presentation noted retirement-withholding increases are not expected.

- State tax / “vote tax” bill: Staff told trustees the district could face about a $700,000 loss in revenue if the bill passes as described. Timing and effective date were described as uncertain but might appear on October tax bills if enacted.

- Teacher pay and cost-of-living choices: Staff presented two ways to structure teacher compensation increases: a flat $1,500 (the amount referenced by the state in current legislative materials) or $2,000 across the salary schedule. The board was asked to indicate a preference so staff can finalize the budget for the county submission.

- Nonteacher (district staff) pay: The presentation included parallel cost estimates to raise nonteacher pay by 1%, 2% or 3% and noted the board must decide whether to build a cost-of-living increase into the draft.

- Bus drivers: State law requires bus drivers receive a 2% increase on the state scale; staff modeled the mandated $64,000 cost and offered the option of applying any board-wide COLA to bus drivers instead of the minimum.

- Software and ESSER funds: Staff said the district reduced planned software renewals from about $2.5 million (one-time/ESSER-funded purchases in prior years) to roughly $750,000 for the coming year, after usage reviews with principals. That reduction was described as painful but necessary to fit recurring funds.

- Teaching assistants and interventionists: The draft included funding for additional staff: 25 teaching assistants at elementary (with a range of start rates depending on credential), and a separate proposal from the superintendent’s office to prioritize certified intervention teachers at middle and high schools (one per middle school; two at the district’s largest middle school; one per high school). Staff emphasized that implementation plans would be needed to ensure assistants are used effectively.

- Other operating items: The draft included a modest insurance increase (workers’ comp/property), utility inflation estimates for next year, a requested translator position, a proposal to convert one part-time position to full-time (with most cost in health insurance), and an estimated $125,000 annual cost for additional event security at athletic/academic events (a line item trustees asked staff to reassess after planned lighting upgrades at some venues).

Board direction and next steps

Trustees discussed options and flagged preferences during the meeting. On the record the group signaled they preferred staff to remove the highest-cost teacher scenario and to present the $2,000 teacher increase option instead of the larger number, and to model bus-driver increases as the mandated 2% state-scale adjustment. Trustees also asked staff to return with a more detailed HVAC recruitment proposal and to double the proposed HVAC technician hourly bump in the draft (trustees discussed raising it an additional $2 per hour as a recruitment tool). No final, formal vote on the overall budget occurred at the meeting; staff said they will present a first-reading draft at the May 12 board meeting and hold the legally required public hearing and second reading in mid‑May/June (staff cited a May 16 public-notice posting requirement and a June 10 target for public hearing/second reading). Staff noted they will present the district’s finalized budget to the county board later in June, subject to county scheduling.

Where the budget stands: staff reiterated the draft assumes no millage change unless the board directs otherwise; staff also included an “assessment adjustment” line that projects how current ad-valorem collections (new construction, vehicle sales) affect revenue if millage stays constant.

Key quote: “So the items that I personally am watching that have a financial impact from Columbia is the vote tax bill … For us, that was about a $700,000 loss in revenue,” Presenter (budget staff) said.

Ending: Staff will circulate the revised draft that reflects the board’s direction and will bring the formal first-reading packet to the May 12 meeting for action. The district will post the legally required public‑hearing notice and return to the board for second reading and the vote in June if timelines hold.