Savannah‑Chatham County school officials present FY27 budget; taxpayer cites possible fund‑balance overage under Georgia law

Miss Cooling, the district presenter, told the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education’s public hearing on May 13 that the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget aligns spending with the district’s strategic plan and four pillars: academic excellence, workforce development, family and partner engagement, and operational excellence.

The presentation, given during the board’s public hearing, reviewed millage history, revenue assumptions and spending projections. Miss Cooling said departments submitted $683.7 million in preliminary baseline and strategic requests — a roughly 2% increase from fiscal year 2026 — and said most growth is driven by mandatory costs such as retirement, benefits and step increases. She described key investments for FY27, including math textbook adoption, mental‑health expansion, early childhood integration and expanded transportation options, and said the district is modeling cost‑of‑living adjustments and other scenarios.

“The preliminary general fund budget total” was presented in the slides as read into the record (transcript text: “78.8 8 million”), and Miss Cooling said projected general fund revenues were $711.9 million under the assumptions shown. Across all funds — general, debt service, capital projects and special revenue — she said projected expenditures total $992 million. The presentation also showed a projected $3.1 million surplus under current assumptions, which the presenter said would contribute to fund balance but is subject to change when the final tax digest is released.

During public comment, a Chatham County taxpayer questioned the district’s fund‑balance practices and cited state law. “There is a Georgia law, OCGA 20‑2‑167(a)(5),” the commenter said, and asserted that “the unassigned fund balance as of June 30th, 2025 was $195 million.” The speaker said the FY26 budget approved in their account was $670 million and argued that 15% of that figure would be $11 million, alleging the district had budgeted an extra $94 million into the fund balance and that the proposed FY27 budget would require an $87 million reduction to meet the 15% limit unless the district has a legal opinion to the contrary. The commenter asked the board to make any such legal opinion public or to follow the statute.

The transcript contains the commenter’s numerical assertions as presented at the hearing; the district did not provide an on‑the‑record response in the provided excerpt. The presenter had earlier described special revenue funds such as Title I, special education and pre‑K and noted internal‑service fund balances (workers’ compensation, unemployment and legacy dental obligations), but did not, in the quoted presentation text, reconcile those fund‑balance figures with the commenter’s calculations.

After public comment the presiding officer called for a motion to adjourn. The transcript shows the motion was moved and seconded and a call for the vote was made; no roll‑call or tally appears in the provided text.

What happens next: the board’s millage‑rate hearings are scheduled in June, and the district’s final budget adoption is scheduled for June 24. The numbers presented in the hearing — including the slide text for the general fund total and the commenter’s fund‑balance assertions — may be refined when the district posts formal budget documents and the final tax digest is released.