SCCPSS finance advisory committee debates whether to treat COLA as baseline spending
Loading...
Summary
Board members and staff debated whether a cost-of-living adjustment should be treated as a mandatory baseline obligation or a discretionary strategic investment; staff will return modeling (2%/3%) and a five-year compensation plan at an April 23 workshop.
Members of the Savannah-Chatham County Public School System Finance Advisory Committee spent the April meeting weighing whether a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) should be built into the district’s baseline budget or treated as a discretionary decision requiring trade-offs.
The Chair opened the discussion by asking staff to clarify baseline versus strategic spending and asked for guidance on COLA. "A key area where we need committee guidance today is how to treat a cost of living adjustment," staff stated. The district’s finance staff and consultants said they will return specific cost models at the April 23 workshop so the committee can see the actual budget impact of different COLA percentages.
Why it matters: the committee was told only roughly 31.6% of the district’s overall funding is covered by the state QBE formula; much of the remainder is locally funded and must cover mandatory costs such as transportation, utilities, nurses, and other services not fully funded by QBE. The Chair pressed staff to make clearer to the public that a headline QBE figure (presented as $315,000,000) is functionally smaller for local planning because the district must account for a roughly $109,000,000 offset and required local mills.
Board arguments split. Supporters of including COLA in the budget argued it is primarily a recruitment and retention tool and that building COLA into a multi-year compensation plan provides predictability. "It's a recruitment and retention tool," one board member said, urging that COLA be put into the budget and then adjusted as needed. Others urged fiscal caution: they said the board needs detailed dollar estimates and a long-term staffing and enrollment projection before committing to a recurring COLA, stressing the structural obligations any recurring percentage would create.
Staff response and next steps: Ramon, the district staff member who gave a historical overview of COLA practices since 2016, told the committee staff will prepare examples of what a 2% and a 3% COLA would cost across the district for the April workshop and pursue a five-year compensation plan to reduce ad hoc adjustments. No formal vote was taken on including COLA in the FY27 baseline; the board asked staff for modeling and recommended further discussion at the workshop.
The meeting concluded with staff committing to return with numbers and clearer documentation (including a public-facing graphic) to explain QBE allocations and the budget impacts of any COLA proposal.
