Haywood County Schools officials present tight 2025–26 budget as major grants and ESSER funding end

Haywood County Schools officials presented the recommended budget for fiscal year 2025–26 at a board work session, saying the budget balances projected revenues and expenditures but faces significant near‑term pressure as federal ESSER funding and a $3 million state grant expire.

"The mission of Haywood County Schools is to work passionately and productively to support student success," said Doctor Putnam. He and staff framed the budget around recruiting and retaining staff while limiting new local spending as enrollment and one‑time funding decline.

Board members were told the recommended budget combines six funds — local current expense, local restricted, capital outlay, child nutrition, state public school, and federal grants — and is organized to meet statutory requirements under the school budget and fiscal control act. Leanna Moody, who led the line‑item discussion, said several assumptions shaped the draft: a 5% pay increase for certified staff, 3% for non‑certified staff, employer retirement matching of 24.75% (she used a three‑year average), employer FICA at 7.65%, and an assumed increase in hospitalization costs.

Moody said ESSER III funding had supplied $15,692,592 to the district over multiple years and that ESSER‑paid salary costs for 2024–25 totaled $878,287. "That is a huge impact affecting our budget this coming year," Moody said, noting ESSER funds ended in September 2024. She also confirmed a $3,000,000 grant from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety will be fully spent by June 30: "No. And that grant ends June 30 and that will spend the whole 3,000,000." The district will use roughly $1,023,875 of that grant in 2024–25 to offset local expenses, Moody said, but those funds will not be available in 2025–26.

Enrollment and per‑pupil figures were a central driver. Moody told the board the district is budgeting for 6,370 Haywood County students (average daily membership) and noted an additional 686 charter students; she said the county per‑pupil appropriation being budgeted is $2,591.43. Board members and staff emphasized that a loss of 17 students reduced the county allocation materially: Moody said that drop cost the district roughly $259,000 compared with holding ADM constant.

On local revenue and reserves, presenters said the recommended county revenue figure is about $18.65 million (speakers referenced $18,654,130) and that the draft budget would use a fund balance allocation of $719,483.75 to balance a local current expense estimate of $19,373,617.75. Moody said the district intends to hold the fund balance appropriation at last year’s level while it evaluates the post‑ESSER budget environment.

Officials itemized other major funds and assumptions: state public school allocations (current year shown as $53,341,808), federal grants (current year allocation shown as $4,590,102), local restricted funds ("over $3,000,000," variable by grants), and a requested capital outlay appropriation of $1,250,000.

Capital requests presented to the board included project estimates for 2025–26 such as: - Bethel (cafeteria roof) — $150,000 - Clyde Elementary (gym HVAC) — $100,000 - North Canton K‑1 building roof — $60,000 - Pisgah High School (fire alarm replacement) — $160,000 - Tuscola High School (finish paving front parking lot) — $300,000 - Waynesville High (HVAC controls in Rooms A and C) — $55,000 - Waynesville Middle (parking lot paving) — $75,000 - Systemwide student device replacements (Chromebooks) — $350,000 Officials said the total capital ask remains $1,250,000.

Child nutrition staff explained that the child nutrition program operates independently of the district’s local general fund. The presenter stated a child nutrition budget figure for 2025–26 of roughly $5.56 million and detailed revenue sources: meal cash sales, USDA reimbursements and donated commodities. The presenter gave current USDA claim‑based reimbursement rates cited in the presentation (for example, $4.54 per free lunch claim and $2.84 per free breakfast claim) and said about 87% of meals claimed are at the free rate under the district’s community eligibility provisions.

Board discussion ranged from the operational implications of lower revenue to program impacts. Several board members warned that an assumed county per‑pupil increase of roughly $81.57 (presenters said that amount brings the per‑pupil appropriation to $2,591.43) does not keep pace with inflation and rising utility and insurance costs. One board member summarized the effect: the presentation’s estimated overall increase in county funding translated to about a 1.81% net increase after enrollment losses, while inflation and energy costs were described as much higher.

Board members and administrators also described steps already taken to control costs, including staff reductions and combining roles. Presenters repeatedly cautioned that continued attrition of staff, larger class sizes and reductions in leadership positions risked program stability and teacher retention if additional funding is not found.

Before adjourning into closed session, the board received the presentation materials and asked staff to provide more detailed line‑item spreadsheets at a later budget meeting. The board then voted to enter closed session; the motion to go into closed session carried and was seconded, and the chair said no action would be taken after the closed session that night.

The presentation was informational; no budget adoption or formal budget votes were recorded at the session.