District presents budget options, warns state funding shift will cut local share; administration recommends modest salary cell increases and limited millage use

Lexington-Richland School District Five staff presented a budget update that predicts a reduced state share of K‑12 funding, recommends a modest teacher-salary increase and proposes using a small portion of available lookback millage to balance priorities.

Chief Financial Officer Heather Tucker told trustees February and March revenue collections for property taxes were above last year’s pace and that districts are seeing long-term shifts in state funding formulas. “This is to be expected,” Tucker said of revenue timing, adding that state-funded items previously covered — digital instructional tools among them — are being reduced or eliminated at the state level, creating new local costs.

Superintendent Dr. Ross and Tucker described how changes in state law and proviso 1.3 alter how new funds are distributed through Weighted Pupil Units (WPUs) and shift more of the cost burden to local revenue in many districts. Dr. Ross said that under recent proposals some charter and virtual weights have changed and that the district will likely receive a smaller share of new statewide education dollars than in earlier years.

To respond, the administration recommended a $1,000 per-cell increase to the district teacher salary schedule (a roughly $7.79 million impacts estimate) rather than a larger $1,500 per-cell increase. The administration also proposed some reclassifications and targeted operational additions — including two afternoon maintenance teams, two onboarding/offboarding coordinators in human resources, added custodial support and small increases to extracurricular supplements for band and D‑team athletics — amounting to proposed net additions shown in the budget packet.

Because the district’s local revenue must offset reduced state funding, staff recommended a rollback millage of 243 mills (after adjusting the value of a mill based on a 97% historic collection rate) and use of five lookback mills to raise approximately $8 million needed to fund the proposed priorities. Tucker said the collection-rate assumption — 97% — reflects ten-year tax-collection data the finance office analyzed.

Budget discussion remained open; trustees requested a continuation of the budget conversation at the June 9 meeting and said they would take a final vote at the June 23 meeting. The board did not take a final vote to adopt the full fiscal 2025–26 package at this meeting.

Trustees asked staff for additional materials before the next discussion: detailed line-item budgets, organization charts for proposed executive-director reclassifications and a clearer cost comparison between contracting and hiring for positions currently covered by ESSER funds, particularly the clinical counselors now funded by time-limited federal grants.

Public speakers and trustees pressed for clarity on priorities. Several public commenters urged retaining clinical counselors that were funded temporarily through ESSER, saying they play a central role supporting students with anxiety, depression or behaviors that impede learning. Parent speaker Stephanie Loric said a district clinical counselor helped her family identify and treat her daughter’s anxiety and argued that the district should preserve those positions.

Administration staff said they will explore contracting alternatives for clinical counseling as a way to sustain hours without adding permanent benefits costs, and will return with options in the June budget follow-up.