Clay County School Board adopts 2025-26 millage, $658 million final budget and educational facilities plan

The Clay County School Board voted 5-0 on Sept. 11, 2025, to adopt the fiscal 2025-26 millage rates and a final budget the district presented as totaling $658,000,000 and to approve the district's 2025-29 educational facilities plan (EFP). The board also approved the superintendent's annual financial report and a June 2025 budget amendment earlier in the meeting.

District Chief Financial Officer Don Posey, assistant superintendent of business affairs, told the board the final budget reflects adjustments from tentative figures and closing-of-books actuals. Posey said the general operating fund combined with the 1-mil fund totals about $428,000,000; special revenue funds total about $49,700,000; debt service about $6,800,000; capital projects about $121,900,000; and internal service funds about $51,300,000, for a districtwide final budget the presentation listed as $658,000,000. Posey said a net increase of roughly $5.8 million between the tentative and final general fund totals results from revenue adjustments and fund-balance reconciliations.

Why it matters: The adopted millage and budget determine local tax rates and how the district allocates funds for schools, staffing, capital projects and federal grants. Several members of the public used the required public hearing to press the board on priorities including use of millage funds, unspent emergency-communications allocations and teacher pay.

Details of the district presentation

Posey described the district's required local effort and other millage components. The presentation listed a state-required local effort component and additional components including a basic discretionary millage (0.748 mills), an additional voted 1-mill operating levy, and a capital outlay rate of 1.5 mills. Staff said the district's proposed total tax rate for 2025-26 is 6.272 mills, about 4.81% above the rollback rate the district calculated.

Posey and staff walked the board through fund-by-fund comparisons between the tentative and final budgets, noting an approximate $19 million decrease in capital-project fund balance tied to payments on projects and contracts, a $1.2 million upward adjustment to food-service revenues (USDA commodity revenue), and the reclassification of revenues and appropriations after closing fiscal-year actuals. The presentation also included a grants summary listing federal grants and amounts the district said had not been awarded as of the final, totaling roughly $17.8 million in the schedule and about $857,000 in grant awards not received and therefore covered temporarily by operating funds in the final budget.

Educational facilities plan

Bryce Ellis, assistant superintendent of operations, said the final EFP contains no substantive changes to revenue or project totals from the tentative plan other than roll-forward adjustments reflecting finalized balances. Lance Addison, director of facilities planning, said the final EFP highlights project-level changes between tentative and final (projects moved, added, removed or with changed funding sources) and that those changes are marked in the document; he invited board members to contact him with questions.

Public comments and district responses

During the required public hearing, residents and district employees asked for more detail about how millage funds and restricted fund balances are being used and why some budgeted safety or communications projects were not fully spent at the school level.

- Sharon Walsh (Orange Park, resident) noted the annual financial report shows more than $10 million in restricted fund balance and asked how much of the district's unassigned/assigned fund balance will be reported to the state and whether restricted funds could have freed general funds for salaries.

- James Howell (teacher, Orange Park High) asked why materials and supplies spending in the budget increased by more than $8 million compared with last year and what purchases justify that increase.

- Susan Ford Hudson (address on file) and Michael Vanderwater questioned line-item entries labeled for emergency communications at several schools and asked why only a portion of those funds were spent; they asked whether the same amounts will be budgeted next year.

- Arnold Anlawaghi (district employee) asked how the purchase and installation of digital marquees at seven schools (presented cost more than $606,000) fit under "emergency communications" and whether those purchases take priority over competitive teacher salaries.

- Vicky Kidwell and other commenters urged the board to consider using millage funds for competitive salary supplements to retain and recruit teachers and to compare Clay County to neighboring districts.

The board closed the public hearing and staff said district staff would follow up with answers to the public's recorded questions.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of the superintendent's annual financial report and annual cost report for the fiscal year ending 06/30/2025: motion by Ms. Gilhausen, second Ms. Clark; vote 5-0, motion carried. - Approval of the June 2025 budget amendment report: motion by Ms. Gilhausen, second Mr. Alvaro; vote 5-0, motion carried. - Adoption of the resolution determining fiscal-year 2025-26 revenue and millage (required local effort, basic discretionary, capital improvement and additional voted operating millage): motion by Ms. Clark, second Ms. Gilhausen; vote 5-0, motion carried. - Adoption of the final budget for fiscal year 2025-26: motion by Ms. Hanson, second Mr. Alvaro; vote 5-0, motion carried. - Adoption of the final 2025-29 Educational Facilities Plan: motion by Ms. Clark, second Ms. Hanson; vote 5-0, motion carried.

What the board recorded and next steps

Board members approved staff's request to upload the final budget figures to the Florida Department of Education after the board's vote. Staff said the final figures in the presentation match the forms that will be submitted to the state. District staff committed to follow up with public commenters with answers to their questions about restricted fund balances, unspent emergency-communications allocations and specific line-item details.

The meeting adjourned after routine board comments.