Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners propose moving $2.7M of SRO costs into education tax to clarify school spending
Summary
County staff told a joint meeting that the county has been funding roughly $6.2M in School Resource Officer (SRO) costs from the general fund and proposed shifting $2.7M of that line into the education tax so the public can see education's true costs; commissioners said the move increases transparency while school leaders asked for clarity about full costs and effects on operating budgets.
County officials told a joint session with the Union County Board of Education that they plan to reclassify a portion of School Resource Officer (SRO) funding from the county's general fund into the education tax as part of a bifurcated tax presentation intended to make education costs more transparent.
"SROs are a cost of education," County Manager Brian Matthews said, explaining the rationale for moving roughly $2,700,000 of SRO funding into the education tax rate so residents can see the direct cost of school safety on tax bills.
County staff presented a slide showing the total county-funded SRO cost at about $6,224,000 and said shifting $2,700,000 to the education tax would reduce the general fund's school-related burden to roughly $7.3 million (after other general-fund items are considered). Commissioners said the change is intended to correct historical opacity about how tax dollars were being allocated and to align the presentation of education costs with actual use.
School board members acknowledged the transparency goal but asked for fuller detail on the SRO price per school and what the shift means for charter schools, which the county said do not receive SRO coverage under current arrangements. "The SROs that we're funding only go to UCPS because we're not providing SROs to all of our charter schools," a commissioner noted during the exchange.
Several board members asked the county to show the full cost to place SROs at all 53 schools and how that total compares to other public-safety or education priorities; county staff said they would provide the underlying slides and further breakdown on request.
Where this fits in the budget: Commissioners framed the SRO reclassification as part of a broader bifurcated tax-rate approach — separate lines on the tax bill for general government and education — that the county adopted to increase clarity for the public.
Next steps: County staff agreed to provide more granular SRO cost information and the commissioners and school board will use that data in follow-up budget deliberations ahead of the county's June budget adoption date.
