Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barrow County school officials warn county move to cut SRO funding would shift nearly $1M onto district budget
Summary
At the June 3 school board meeting, the district reported the Barrow County Board of Commissioners proposed reducing its share of school resource officer funding, which would add roughly $867,000 to the district’s FY2026 budget gap and force a budget amendment, use of fund balance or a tax-rate increase.
Dr. Bowen, the district’s executive for support services, told the Barrow County Board of Education on June 3 that a recent communication from the Barrow County Board of Commissioners proposes to reduce and possibly eliminate the county’s share of funding for school resource officers (SROs).
“The county’s proposal calls for defunding four current SRO positions and for declining to fund any of the future eight SROs that this board of education has already approved,” Dr. Bowen said, listing direct and indirect costs the district would be expected to assume—vehicles and vehicle maintenance and fuel, uniforms, ammunition, education and training, and other materials and equipment.
Board members pressed for context and numbers. Miss Houston, director of business services, said the district budgeted $1,142,000 for SROs in the FY2026 tentative budget but that the county’s current proposal would amount to a $1,932,000 ask from the district, leaving an estimated gap of about $867,000.
“That difference is $867,000,” Miss Houston said, adding that the district could cover the one-time cost from fund balance but that recurring costs would likely require a budget amendment or a millage-rate increase. She estimated the millage increase to cover the gap would be roughly 0.195 mills.
Board members asked for more detail about the proposed change. One member noted that the 2017 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) referenced 12 positions and asked whether the county had sent similar notices to other school partners; Dr. Bowen said he had not spoken directly with Bethlehem Christian Academy and had received word they had not received a similar letter.
Members also raised liability and property-tracking questions if the district were to purchase vehicles or equipment for officers and requested follow-up on the county’s detailed schedule for SchoolDOG reports and any further county communications.
The board did not take a formal vote on the SRO funding at the June 3 meeting but several subsequent budget decisions at the same session (see related coverage of the tentative FY2026 budget) reflected the district’s concern that the county action could force the district to use fund balance or pursue a millage increase.
What happens next: The board asked staff to follow up with the county and to prepare options that would either absorb the added SRO costs or show the fiscal impact if the county moves forward with the proposed funding change.
