Randolph County Schools board warned of multimillion‑dollar budget gap; reinstates personnel to avoid grievances

Randolph County Schools officials told the board at a special meeting that the district does not have a balanced general fund and faces a multi‑million dollar shortfall, and the board voted 5‑0 to reinstate a slate of personnel to correct prior transfer decisions and avoid legal grievances.

Brad Smith, the district official who presented the budget workbook, told the board: "at this point, we do not have a balanced budget," and walked trustees through revenue and expense lines, including a $5,100,000 carryover from the previous year and previously used carryover of roughly $2.8 million. He said, after conservative adjustments, "I'm still $466,000 short." Those figures reflect the district’s current view of state funding, federal grants and anticipated local receipts.

Why it matters: trustees must adopt a balanced budget by the state deadline. Smith warned that timing and reductions in federal and state grant lines — including possible declines in Title I/II/IV allocations and uncertainties in Medicaid reimbursements — increase cash‑flow risk and may push receipts into the next fiscal year, making it harder to meet payroll and vendor obligations on time.

Smith told the board that several revenue items are unsettled: special education and Title grant totals were not finalized, the Secure Rural Schools Act reauthorization remains uncertain (a reauthorization would bring more funds), and bank interest income has fallen because there is less carryover to invest. He described an estimated interfund transfer — a roughly $69,000 indirect‑cost recovery — and said those amounts are contingent on state calculations.

On the expense side, the presentation emphasized that salaries dominate the budget and that some increases are tied to state minimum pay and longevity steps. Smith said stipend spending rose sharply this year — more than $100,000 — largely to cover summer programs that had previously been funded by other sources; the district plans a reduced summer program limited to third grade under the Third Grade Success Act and budgeted roughly $70,000 for stipends next year.

Trustees and staff discussed potential cuts and tradeoffs. One board member explained the district’s "savings account" (carryover) concept to the public: once carryover is exhausted there are no extra funds to cover shortfalls. Another trustee warned that making deeper cuts could force the district to reduce services or even close schools over time if enrollment and revenue trends continue downward.

Electric buses and transportation were a separate focus. Trustees raised concerns that charging stations and electric fleet operations could create early cash‑flow hits: charging stations were estimated between roughly $70,000 and $120,000 and monthly electric bills could run into thousands of dollars. Smith said reimbursement and funding flows for transportation often lag one to two years, which would create an up‑front cost even if federal grants eventually offset purchases.

Personnel rescission and vote: The board considered rescinding transfer/termination actions taken April 22 that, staff said, had improperly displaced some employees because of seniority and certification issues. The board discussed the legal risk: a staff member advising the board said that if affected employees pursued grievances "there would be no way to not grant their grievances." To avoid that outcome and to comply with personnel law, the board approved the slate of rescissions (Section 3 personnel) by voice vote, 5‑0. The transcript records the motion as moved and seconded and the board chair calling for ayes; the board recorded the motion as passing 5‑0. (The transcript identifies Janie as having seconded a prior motion; the mover who made the Section 3 motion was not explicitly named in the meeting transcript.)

What the vote means for the budget: reinstating the listed positions reduces the district’s ability to close the remaining gap; Smith said the personnel recommendations had been part of an earlier set of actions that, if fully enacted, would have produced larger cuts. Smith estimated that the personnel slate adopted at the prior April meeting would have yielded additional cuts of approximately $1.57 million if all had proceeded as presented, but reversing specific transfers restores salary expenditures the board must now account for.

Restricted funds and limits: trustees noted the district holds roughly $750,000 in a permanent improvement fund that state code restricts for specific capital purposes; staff said those dollars cannot be legally reallocated to cover general fund operations. Smith emphasized the unpredictability of reimbursements and federal timing, saying that final year‑end revenue estimates often do not crystalize until June.

The board set next steps and agreed to return at the regular and special meetings later in the month to consider the final budget. The presenter said he will report to the state if the board cannot present a balanced budget by the deadline, and trustees signaled they would continue exploring reductions and other options before the final vote.

Votes at a glance: Section 3 (personnel rescission slate) — approved 5‑0. Motion mover not specified in the transcript; second recorded as Janie for a related motion earlier in the meeting. No other formal budget votes were recorded at the meeting.

Speakers quoted or referenced: Brad Smith (district budget presenter, identified in the transcript by board members as "Brad" and earlier referenced as "Mr. Smith"); the board chair (speaker 1); Janie (board member, referenced in the record); multiple board members who asked questions about transportation and Head Start.