Sumner County school board approves revised budget contingent on county approval of $5.4 million for athletic projects

The Sumner County School Board voted 9–1 on July 23 to approve a revised 2024–25 budget that the board said is contingent on the county commission approving $5.4 million in nonrecurring capital to fund athletic facilities and related capital projects.

Dr. Lankford, the district’s director of schools, framed the vote as a pragmatic compromise intended to secure raises for employees while seeking county support for stadium work. He told the board that the budget was built without requiring a tax increase and that employee raises already approved by the board would be paid retroactively once a county-approved budget is in place. “Regardless of the valuation of your home, your county taxes will not go up this year,” he said, and he urged the board to move quickly because delays could prevent the district from issuing contracts and ordering equipment.

The vote followed extended public comment and board debate. Susan Saunders, a resident and former school teaching assistant, urged the board to ensure raises for classified staff, saying “an average of $12.78 is not a reasonable wage.” Several board members argued both for protecting compensation increases and for addressing long‑standing facility needs. Opposing the motion, board member Mr. Lacey said he would not “gamble with teacher raises,” calling it morally wrong to make raises contingent on uncertain county action.

Under the board’s motion — moved by Mister Wise and seconded by Mister Gregory — the board will send a letter to the county and seek a parallel resolution from the county commission and the Tennessee Department of Education clarifying that the $5.4 million would be treated as nonrecurring capital and would not count toward maintenance of effort. Lankford said legal staff had drafted the letter and that both the county attorney and district counsel had reviewed its language; he characterized Department of Education review as likely routine.

Board discussion focused heavily on risk and timing. Lankford warned that staying on a continuation budget past Sept. 1 could bar capital purchases (including buses and athletic construction), delay purchases such as AEDs required by a new state law, and leave employees on last year’s pay scale until county approval. Board members pressed whether contractors would extend bids if the board delayed approval; the superintendent said the district had a letter from the contractor saying there was no guarantee bids would be extended beyond mid‑August.

The revised budget document the board reviewed lists $412,821,720 in total funds and reflects prior adjustments the board made this summer, including a $2 million reduction adopted June 18. Lankford said the district planned roughly $29.3 million in new compensation and that the proposed changes would increase pay for many classified positions and teachers over several years.

The board also reviewed a breakdown of capital reductions that would yield the $5.4 million difference the county requested and a summary of how reserve balances were being used to balance operating and capital budgets. Finance staff explained that some reserve lines moved between operating and capital accounting but that the district’s total reserves did not increase as a result.

Next steps: the board said it will publish its approved budget in the local legal notice (as required by state law) and present the package on the floor of the county commission. Dr. Lankford said the earliest practical county meeting to consider the board’s proposal would be Aug. 12; the county commission must act before the district can begin issuing capital POs tied to the $5.4 million contingency.