Hickman County TN

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

School Board · Meeting · May 8, 2023

Mon, May 8, 2023

Hickman County Board of Education meetings, including regular sessions and special called meetings.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Join the Substack

This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.

The meeting segment focused heavily on budget, compensation, and benefit policy. The board amended Board Policy 2.804 on first reading to remove language tying salaries and benefits to the county commission, citing changing law and outdated policy language. It then worked through the school budget in detail, debating school nurse staffing under TISA, board-member compensation and travel, referral incentives for hard-to-fill jobs, health-insurance eligibility for board members and part-time/non-certified employees, and competing options for raises versus benefits for teachers, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and other support staff.

The longest discussion was over how far to go on recurring compensation increases without eroding fund balance too far. Members compared Hickman pay to neighboring systems, weighed a 4% versus 6% salary model, and discussed offering insurance to bus drivers and cafeteria staff. The board ultimately approved a budget path built around a 6% raise model plus a $3,000 increase for support staff and budget capacity for insurance for about 40 transportation/child-nutrition employees, while noting a separate insurance-resolution step would still be needed. Other notable threads included the 750:1 school-nurse ratio, projected fund-balance impacts, capital projects, security film estimates, and future presentation of the budget to the county legislative body.

New Business / Agenda Items

Board policy 2.804 amendment 16:49

  • 17:15 Motion made to amend Board Policy 2.804 by striking language stating that salary and other benefits “shall be determined by the county commission,” with the explanation that the policy was outdated and law was changing.
  • 17:32 Amendment approved on first reading and the second reading was waived.
  • 17:46 Vote recorded as 5–0, with 2 absent.

General Purpose School Fund budget (141) 18:21

  • 18:21 Motion opened discussion to approve the 141 budget.
  • 19:03 Staff explained the version on screen matched the packet previously provided and could be revised live as members requested changes.
  • 19:36 One of the main follow-up questions was the school-nurse issue under TISA, and how state funding assumptions might affect compliance and staffing choices.

School nurses / TISA staffing discussion 19:54

  • 20:02 Staff said TISA funds school nurses at a ratio of 1 to 750, reduced from roughly 1 to 3,000, but does not itself define whether the funded nurse must be an RN or LPN.
  • 20:19 Discussion noted a failed bill from the spring legislature that would have required districts to track the nurse allocation more strictly; members were told that similar tracking requirements may return.
  • 21:10 Staff advised that if the position must count as a licensed school nurse, it would need to be an RN, while an LPN would count as other medical personnel.
  • 21:20 The current budget line held about $305,000; increasing it to $360,000 was presented as enough to cover 4 RNs and 4 LPNs, putting the district ahead of any future compliance tracking.
  • 21:45 The argument for increasing now was to avoid hiring more LPNs only to be forced later to replace them with RNs if the state tightens enforcement.
  • 22:02 Staff also noted an RN already budgeted in a coordinated-school-health role helps with the ratio.
  • 22:18 The earlier proposal had been 8 total school medical staff: 2 RNs and 6 LPNs.
  • 22:50 A motion was made to raise the nurse budget line in 141 from $305,000 to $360,000.
  • 23:41 Public-facing comment thanked the board for taking the issue seriously and asked whether 4 RNs would satisfy the 1:750 ratio for a district enrollment just over 3,000.
  • 24:11 Staff answered that at around 3,000 students, 4 RNs would cover the district; another RN would not be needed until roughly 3,500 students.
  • 24:25 Board discussion confirmed the intent for next year’s budget was 4 RNs and 4 LPNs.
  • 25:27 Motion passed 5–0, with 2 absent.
  • 25:50 Staff added that related payroll lines also needed adjustment: about $4,200 more for Social Security and $5,500 more for retirement, tied to the salary change.

Employee referral incentive for hard-to-fill positions 26:42

  • 26:42 Staff raised a possible “finder’s fee” / referral incentive for hard-to-fill jobs.
  • 26:56 Proposal: if a current employee recommends a hire, the employee would receive $500 at initial hire, $250 after the first year, and $250 after the second year.
  • 27:14 The estimated budget impact to support this program was about $15,000.
  • 27:22 Legal question was raised; staff said it was permissible, but the payments would need to be budgeted as reportable wages.
  • 27:41 Staff said the line should be 71100-189 (“other salaries and wages”).
  • 28:26 Motion made to change line item 189 to $45,000, apparently to create room for the referral/incentive concept and related costs.
  • 29:04 Motion passed 5–0, with 2 absent.

Board-member compensation 30:14

  • 30:14 A member restated a prior motion in three parts on school-board compensation.
  • 30:32 The proposal was to pay county school board members at the same rate as the county legislative body effective July 1, 2023, with $16,800 placed in the 2023–24 school budget under line 72310-191, plus related payroll costs.
  • 30:49 The motion also said any member who wished to continue at the current rate, or any rate equal to or below the county legislative body, could decline compensation, but the board could not pay less than $4 per day because state law requires that minimum.
  • 31:34 Motion passed, with vote recorded as 5–0, 2 absent.

Board-member health insurance proposal 31:57

  • 31:57 A second motion was presented to provide school board members paid health insurance only, budgeted in line item 207, with members free to decline enrollment.
  • 32:21 Staff explained the preliminary budget estimate assumed 7 members enrolled at the top individual premium rate, around $7,900 each.
  • 34:30 Discussion split both ways: some saw insurance as a way to make service possible for future candidates who lack coverage; others worried it might attract candidates for the benefit rather than the work.
  • 35:54 A related point was raised that non-licensed school employees working enough hours should also be considered for insurance access.
  • 37:11 Staff clarified that board-member insurance is separate from county-commission compensation rules and that the board could choose whether to offer insurance and at what funding level.
  • 52:52 The motion was reread.
  • 53:26 Motion failed on a 3–2 vote, with 2 absent.

Board-member travel reimbursement 54:11

  • 54:11 Motion made to place $5,000 in line item 355 for board-member travel, treated as reimbursement rather than income.
  • 54:20 Travel vouchers would be required for travel between schools for meetings, and officers could file for extra-duty travel required by their roles.
  • 55:18 Discussion framed the action as making existing practice official and lawful as reimbursement instead of informal compensation treatment.
  • 55:35 Staff clarified this would mean $200 per month compensation plus mileage reimbursement, unlike the county commission, where mileage was said not to be on top of the monthly amount.
  • 56:23 Motion passed 5–0, with 2 absent.

Salary and staffing budget strategy 57:11

  • 57:11 Staff introduced comparison sheets showing what 4%, 6%, and 8% salary approaches would do to the budget.
  • 57:56 The original working budget had been built around a 4% step increase.
  • 59:49 The modeled 8% step increase was said to average closer to about 9% overall for employees depending on placement on the scale.
  • 1:00:24 Non-personnel expenditures were discussed at about $8.1 million, based on five-year history.
  • 1:00:50 Staff explained that under average historical revenue and spending patterns, the different salary models would produce differing projected hits to fund balance.
  • 1:01:14 One summary given was approximately $2.7 million impact at 4% and roughly $3.05 million at 6%; the transcript is unclear on the exact label, but the point was that larger raise models materially increased reliance on fund balance.
  • 1:03:42 Members noted the budget still included roughly $2.1 million in capital.
  • 1:04:01 A figure just under $500,000 / about $549,000 was discussed in connection with a spreadsheet balance line; the discussion reflected confusion about whether it represented projected ending balance or a separate difference line.
  • 1:04:52 Staff said one recent projection had the district hitting fund balance by about $100,000 in FY 2023.
  • 1:05:14 Another finance-office estimate was closer to adding about $500,000 to fund balance for the current year instead of using it.
  • 1:07:12 A separate scenario used about $5.943 million as a projected July 1 fund balance.
  • 1:08:06 Members said of about $12 million in total fund balance, only roughly $7 million was really usable once the required 3% reserve and cafeteria restrictions were considered.

Regional pay comparisons and pressure to raise compensation 1:08:31

  • 1:08:46 A year-zero bachelor’s teacher salary comparison was discussed: Hickman at about $41,600, Maury at $42,100, and Williamson at $45,900.
  • 1:09:22 At bachelor’s year 25, Hickman was said to be about $53,400, Maury $62,800, and Williamson $62,900.
  • 1:10:01 Hickman’s teacher scale was said to top out at year 30, while Williamson topped out at 21 and also applied later percentage increases.
  • 1:10:23 Members then shifted to whether support employees could receive insurance while still keeping teachers below the cost of a 6% model.
  • 1:11:16 Report from staff conversations suggested many support employees might prefer about a $3/hour raise over insurance, though members disagreed on whether wages, benefits, or both would best aid retention.

Support staff raises, insurance eligibility, and staffing shortages 1:11:59

  • 1:11:59 Staff said the 143 budget already assumed every food-service worker would receive a $3,000 increase over the prior year.
  • 1:12:47 That projection effectively started cafeteria workers at about $13/hour.
  • 1:12:32 Food-service hours were described as about 29.5 hours/week for 36 weeks.
  • 1:14:17 Members discussed mixing approaches, such as raising cafeteria pay while offering insurance to bus drivers, but staff cautioned that insurance rules for non-certified staff might require broader consistency.
  • 1:15:32 Staff provided additional comparison work for giving non-licensed, non-supervisory support personnel a flat $3,000 increase instead of only a percentage raise.
  • 1:16:04 Staff emphasized that 8% on a $20,000 salary is only $1,600, so percentage raises do less for lower-paid employees than flat increases.
  • 1:16:31 Members raised the food-service funding side too, asking whether larger recurring pay commitments would eventually force higher meal prices for students.
  • 1:17:42 A member directly polled the room conceptually on whether people would prefer a raise in 141 or 143 over immediate insurance.
  • 1:18:27 Staff suggested a flat-fee model could better target bus drivers, assistants, and cafeteria workers.
  • 1:19:46 Multiple members stressed the operational harm from understaffing: daily bus-driver shortages, split routes, and short-handed cafeterias.
  • 1:20:27 One member contrasted Hickman’s teacher pay after 30 years at about $53,000 with Williamson’s pay after 21 years at about $63,000, arguing the district had to do more to retain staff.
  • 1:21:50 Another member tied bus-driver shortages to instructional loss because students are pulled early or arrive late due to route doubling.
  • 1:24:46 Staff argued that increases in wages and flexible benefits help more people than a narrower insurance-only approach because not every employee wants or needs the board’s health plan.
  • 1:25:50 Staff again noted the individual insurance package was around $7,900, making a broad insurance expansion expensive.

Insurance law / part-time and non-certified employees 38:03

  • 38:03 Staff reminded the board that its current policy defines full-time employment as 30 hours per week, with part-time employees eligible for benefits only if recommended by the director and approved by the board.
  • 38:31 Another member cited guidance from TSBA, saying a resolution could authorize insurance access for non-certified employees working 25 hours per week, but not substitutes or temporary employees unless they otherwise met full-time thresholds.
  • 39:17 Under the Affordable Care Act, all full-time employees must be offered the same level of medical insurance; part-time workers are treated differently.
  • 41:16 Staff said for part-time workers the board could offer something less than the usual employer 70/30 split because the ACA does not require the full-time standard for part-time employees.
  • 41:40 A rough estimate was given that if 20 part-time workers enrolled under a 70/30 model, the cost could be around $160,000.
  • 42:06 Discussion expanded the possible universe: roughly 45 food-service employees and around 40 bus drivers.
  • 42:13 Child nutrition had 42 employees, and 29 of them reportedly did not have insurance through the system.
  • 44:33 A benefits-plan pamphlet was quoted stating that eligible non-certified employees must have completed 12 months of employment, work at least 25 hours per week, and be covered by a resolution approved by the governing body before enrollment.
  • 45:48 Staff contrasted insurance with increasing the existing opt-out / benefit amount: moving certain non-licensed workers’ benefit amount from $2,000 to $4,000 or $5,000 would have major budget effects.
  • 46:14 Staff cited about $420,000 in impact at one modeled increase level for funds 141/142/143.
  • 46:31 The reason one change hit 141 hard was that many teachers already receive about $3,900 if they do not take insurance, so raising the non-insurance benefit has spillover cost.
  • 48:45 Several members concluded that, instead of increasing opt-out benefits systemwide, it made more sense to target insurance expansion to bus drivers and cafeteria workers.

Formal insurance expansion motion for non-certified employees 2:06:14

  • 2:06:14 A motion was read to provide health insurance at the single rate paid by the board for employees who had completed 12 months with the Hickman County Board of Education and worked a minimum average of 25 hours per week.
  • 2:06:36 A member objected that bus drivers do not actually reach 25 hours/week, which would leave many of the intended employees ineligible.
  • 2:07:24 Members then discussed leaving the standard as written for now despite the limitation, rather than trying to rewrite the insurance-plan rules on the spot.
  • 2:08:28 Motion passed unanimously among those present; vote recorded as 5–0. The discussion immediately after reflected some uncertainty over exactly how that motion aligned with the broader budget decisions and later resolution requirements.

Final compensation package decision for budget planning 2:08:46

  • 2:08:46 Members restated the central choice: 4% with targeted support measures, or move up to 6% while also addressing support staff and insurance.
  • 2:10:27 A motion was made to use the 6% model, add $3,000 for support staff, and provide budgeted insurance capacity for about 40 support employees in transportation and child nutrition.
  • 2:11:29 Motion passed unanimously among those present, recorded as 5–0.
  • 2:11:44 Staff requested an amendment adding $400,000 to insurance line item 71100-207 to cover the added insurance risk and allow later allocation to the proper insurance-related lines.
  • 2:13:35 Motion to amend line item 207 passed 5–0.

Return to and approval of the 141 budget 2:14:19

  • 2:14:19 A point of order noted that the original motion to approve the 141 budget was still pending after all amendments.
  • 2:15:26 Members briefly revisited whether staffing flexibility was needed for additional positions; discussion suggested there might be retirements and reallocation rather than net growth.
  • 2:16:21 The only specific full-time addition mentioned was a math specialist for grades 6–8, described as support for improving math outcomes; a part-time person was already serving in that role.
  • 2:17:04 Motion to approve the 141 budget as amended passed 5–0, with 2 absent.

Cafeteria / Child Nutrition Fund budget (143) 2:17:37

  • 2:17:37 Motion made to approve the 143 budget for discussion.
  • 2:18:15 Staff said cafeteria personnel in 143 already included the $3,000 increase that effectively started pay at $13/hour.
  • 2:18:39 Insurance for the targeted workers was not initially built into 143, because the board had budgeted the risk over in 141 first.
  • 2:19:15 Staff said current-year child-nutrition operations were projected to finish about $60,000 to $100,000 positive, though timing differences between revenue and spending made that uncertain.
  • 2:19:39 The board still needed to budget revenue and expenditures conservatively regardless of expected carryover.
  • 2:19:50 Of the 40 insurance slots discussed, staff suggested moving about 20 of them into 143 for child nutrition.
  • 2:20:04 That child-nutrition insurance risk was estimated around $160,000, though actual participation might be lower.
  • 2:20:42 The food-service equipment line still showed $50,000 budgeted in 2022–23, but actual equipment spending was said to be about $400,000, much of it still not fully spent because of supply-chain delays.
  • 2:21:08 Staff said the beginning July fund balance for child nutrition was estimated around $412,000.
  • 2:21:23 Two additional grants had been received during the year, and budget amendments for those grants totaled roughly $158,000, mostly for food supplies.
  • 2:22:22 Members clarified that the larger $500,000 reserve concept was more of an operating-protection target, while the $412,000 figure was a current estimated carryover.

Amendments and approval of the 143 budget 2:23:43

  • 2:23:43 Staff recommended increasing employee insurance in 143 by about $80,000, taking the line up to about $135,000, to cover part of the child-nutrition insurance exposure.
  • 2:24:10 Motion to change line item 207 to $135,000 passed 5–0, with 2 absent.
  • 2:24:50 A question was raised about meal charges / lunch payment to child nutrition and how far behind collections were; staff said about $30,000.
  • 2:25:15 Staff then said 143 also needed revenue balancing. The proposed fix was to raise lunch-payment / child-nutrition revenue lines by $40,000 each so the fund would balance.
  • 2:26:11 One line cited in the discussion was 43521; another revenue line appears to have been 47113.
  • 2:26:50 Motion to make the revenue adjustments passed unanimously among those present.
  • 2:27:06 Staff asked whether the board wanted to request any additional revenue on the 141 side, such as a property-tax increase; members did not pursue a new request here.
  • 2:28:14 Staff said the amended 141 and 143 budgets would be presented to the county commission the following Monday, with solid waste at 5:30 and the school budget after that.
  • 2:29:09 The 143 budget, as amended, was approved 5–0, with 2 absent.

Announcements 2:28:14

  • 2:28:14 The board was told the amended budgets would be presented to the county legislative body the next Monday evening.
  • 2:28:14 The schedule given was 5:30 for solid waste and the school budget afterward; attendance was encouraged.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
2.804 Policy number Board policy amended on salaries and benefits 17:15
5–0 Vote First-reading approval of policy amendment 17:46
2 Headcount Members absent on early votes 17:55
141 Fund / budget number General Purpose School Fund under discussion 18:21
1:750 Ratio TISA school nurse funding ratio 20:02
1:3,000 Ratio Prior school nurse ratio referenced in discussion 20:56
$305,000 Budget amount Existing nurse staffing line before amendment 21:20
$360,000 Budget amount Proposed nurse staffing line after amendment 21:20
4 RNs Staffing count RN staffing level discussed for compliance 21:29
4 LPNs Staffing count LPN staffing level discussed for compliance 21:29
$55,000 Increase Additional amount needed to move nurse line to compliance-ready level 21:37
189.9 Line item Existing RN-related coordinated school health line referenced 22:02
8 Staffing count Earlier total proposal for medical personnel 22:18
2 RNs Staffing count Earlier nurse proposal 22:18
6 LPNs Staffing count Earlier nurse proposal 22:18
3,000 Enrollment Approximate student count used for nurse ratio discussion 23:56
2,800 Enrollment threshold Enrollment at which four RNs still cover ratio 24:03
3,500 Enrollment threshold Approximate next threshold requiring another RN 24:11
$4,200 Payroll cost Added Social Security tied to nurse budget increase 25:50
$5,500 Payroll cost Added retirement tied to nurse budget increase 25:58
$500 Incentive Employee referral payment at initial hire 27:04
$250 Incentive Referral payment after first year 27:04
$250 Incentive Referral payment after second year 27:04
$15,000 Budget amount Estimated cost of referral incentive program 27:14
71100-189 Line item Suggested wage line for referral incentives 27:41
$45,000 Budget amount Amended amount for line item 189 28:26
72310-191 Line item Board-member compensation line 30:41
$16,800 Budget amount Board-member compensation amount placed in budget 30:41
July 1, 2023 Effective date Proposed start date for board compensation change 30:32
$4 per day Statutory minimum Minimum board compensation referenced from law 31:05
207 Line item Board-member insurance line discussed 31:57
7 Headcount Board members used in insurance estimate 32:21
$7,900 Insurance premium Top individual policy cost used for estimates 32:28
3–2 Vote Board-member health-insurance motion failed 54:03
355 Line item Board-member travel reimbursement line 54:11
$5,000 Budget amount Travel reimbursement line amount 54:11
$200 per month Compensation Board-member monthly pay referenced in travel discussion 55:35
4% Rate Original step increase model 57:11
6% Rate Alternative raise model considered 57:11
8% Rate Alternative raise model considered 57:11
9% Average rate Approximate average effect of 8% step model 59:49
$8.1 million Expenditure Non-personnel spending estimate based on historical pattern 1:00:24
$2.7 million Deficit / fund-balance impact Summary figure discussed for one raise scenario 1:01:14
$3.05 million Deficit / fund-balance impact Summary figure discussed for another raise scenario 1:01:21
$2.1 million Capital amount Capital projects included in budget 1:03:42
$100,000 Fund-balance impact One FY23 projection of using fund balance 1:04:52
$500,000 Fund-balance impact Alternate projection of adding to fund balance 1:05:39
$5.943 million Fund balance Projected July 1 fund balance in one scenario 1:07:12
$12 million Fund balance Total fund balance discussed 1:08:06
$7 million Usable fund balance Portion described as truly usable after restrictions 1:08:15
3% Reserve requirement Required fund-balance reserve referenced 1:08:15
$41,600 Salary Hickman bachelor’s year-zero teacher pay 1:08:46
$42,100 Salary Maury bachelor’s year-zero teacher pay 1:08:54
$45,900 Salary Williamson bachelor’s year-zero teacher pay 1:08:54
$53,400 Salary Hickman bachelor’s year-25 pay 1:09:22
$62,800 Salary Maury bachelor’s year-25 pay 1:09:31
$62,900 Salary Williamson bachelor’s year-25 pay 1:09:31
30 Years Hickman salary scale top-out year 1:10:01
21 Years Williamson salary scale top-out year 1:09:40
$3 per hour Wage preference Support staff preference reported by one member 1:11:16
$3,000 Raise amount Food-service increase built into 143 budget 1:11:59
$13/hour Hourly wage Approximate starting cafeteria wage after increase 1:12:47
29.5 hours Hours Weekly cafeteria schedule cited 1:12:32
36 weeks Time period Cafeteria work year cited 1:12:39
$20,000 Salary Example support-staff salary used in comparison 1:16:04
$1,600 Raise amount Value of an 8% raise on a $20,000 salary 1:16:04
$53,000 Salary Approximate Hickman teacher pay after 30 years 1:20:27
$63,000 Salary Approximate Williamson teacher pay after 21 years 1:20:34
30 hours/week Policy threshold Current full-time benefit eligibility in board policy 38:03
25 hours/week Eligibility threshold Expanded non-certified insurance eligibility threshold 38:31
12 months Employment period Service required before expanded eligibility begins 44:33
70/30 Premium split Employer/employee insurance split referenced 41:07
20 Enrollees Example part-time insurance participation estimate 41:40
$160,000 Insurance cost Estimated cost if 20 part-time workers enroll 41:40
45 Headcount Approximate food-service employees referenced 41:57
40 Headcount Approximate bus drivers referenced 42:06
42 Headcount Child nutrition employee count 42:13
29 Headcount Child nutrition employees without insurance 42:13
$2,000 Benefit amount Existing non-insurance benefit level referenced 45:48
$4,000 Benefit amount Modeled increased benefit level 45:55
$5,000 Benefit amount Modeled increased benefit level 46:14
$420,000 Budget impact Estimated cost at one modeled benefit increase level 46:14
$3,900 Benefit amount Teacher non-insurance benefit referenced 46:31
$50,000 Statutory target Required base teacher salary by 2026 discussed 1:31:32
2026 Deadline year Year by which teacher base pay must reach $50,000 2:00:47
13 Headcount Teachers currently driving buses 1:34:18
6 Headcount Teacher assistants currently driving buses 1:34:18
530 Headcount Rough total employee count 1:44:42
290 Headcount Rough certified employee count 1:44:42
230 Headcount Rough support/non-certified count by subtraction 1:44:52
$690,000 Payroll cost Rough cost of $3,000 raise for support staff 1:44:59
$1 million Payroll cost Rounded cost of 4% raise for certified employees 1:41:34
$162,000 Insurance cost Estimated insurance cost for bus drivers and cafeteria workers 1:42:07
$1.852 million Fund-balance hit Combined estimate for raises plus targeted insurance 1:46:14
21 people Enrollees Approximate enrollees implied by $162,000 / $7,900 estimate 1:47:21
$2.737 million Fund-balance hit Projection after adding support increases in one scenario 1:48:16
$1 million Capital estimate High-end estimate for shatterproof security film 1:49:24
40 to 45 people Headcount Rough support-staff insurance group mentioned 1:51:26
$2.017 million Fund-balance hit Combined estimate under one 4% + support + insurance scenario 1:52:44
$15/hour Wage comparison Fast-food wage cited in support of higher school wages 1:54:02
$290,000 Payroll cost Increase tied to support-staff proposal under one comparison 1:55:18
$1.1 million Fund-balance hit Estimated operational hit after removing capital line in one 4% scenario 1:56:27
$52,504 Salary Teacher-pay figure shown during discussion 1:57:15
58.66 Rate / percentage Figure referenced alongside salary schedule comparison 1:57:21
6% Rate Final raise model selected for budget planning 2:10:27
$400,000 Budget amendment Increase to insurance line 71100-207 in 141 2:11:44
71100-207 Line item Insurance line increased in 141 2:11:56
6–8 Grade span Full-time math specialist role discussed 2:16:21
143 Fund / budget number Child Nutrition budget under discussion 2:17:37
$60,000 to $100,000 Surplus projection Expected positive year-end result in child nutrition 2:19:15
20 Enrollees Suggested portion of insurance group moved into 143 2:19:50
$160,000 Insurance cost Estimated child nutrition insurance risk 2:19:58
$50,000 Equipment budget Food-service equipment line in 2022–23 2:20:42
$400,000 Equipment spending Actual equipment spending discussed 2:20:52
$412,000 Fund balance Estimated beginning July child-nutrition balance 2:21:08
2 Grant count Additional grants received in child nutrition 2:21:23
$158,000 Grant / amendment total Child nutrition budget amendments for added grants 2:21:32
$80,000 Budget amendment Increase to 143 insurance line recommended 2:23:43
$135,000 Budget amount New 143 insurance line target 2:24:02
$30,000 Receivable / collections issue Lunch payment amount said to be behind 2:24:57
$40,000 Revenue amendment Increase to one child-nutrition revenue line 2:25:24
$40,000 Revenue amendment Increase to second child-nutrition revenue line 2:25:31
43521 Revenue line Child nutrition line adjusted to balance budget 2:25:31
47113 Revenue line Child nutrition line adjusted to balance budget 2:25:40
5:30 Time Next Monday solid waste budget presentation before school budget 2:28:14

External vendors, brands, and software

Name Type Context / topic Timestamp
TSBA Company Guidance cited on insurance eligibility and required resolution for non-certified employees 38:31
Staples Brand Mentioned as an example while discussing inflation on basic goods 1:28:58
Amazon Company Cited in discussion of online sales-tax collections benefiting county revenues 1:29:30
Walmart Company Referenced in sales-tax and local-retail discussion 1:29:53
UPS Company Mentioned in discussion of delivery law changes and local sales-tax capture 1:29:30

Laws and policies

Citation / name Level Type Context / topic Timestamp
Board Policy 2.804 School Policy Salary and benefits language amended because policy was considered outdated 17:15
TISA State Law Nurse-allocation formula and compliance discussion 20:02
Affordable Care Act Federal Law Full-time employees must be offered the same level of medical insurance; part-time treatment discussed 39:17
25-hour rule State Rule Insurance-plan rule for non-certified employees discussed from benefits materials 44:33
12-month employment requirement State Rule Required service period before expanded non-certified insurance eligibility 44:33

Files

This document is a budget estimate for Hickman County, Tennessee, specifically for the General Purpose School Fund (Fund 141) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. The excerpt includes detailed estimates of revenues and expenditures, highlighting various categories such as local taxes, state education funds, federal government contributions, and specific program expenditures related to instruction and support services. The document outlines anticipated revenues totaling approximately $30.9 million and provides a breakdown of estimated expenditures across different educational programs and administrative costs. This is based on the beginning of the file only, and further details may be present in the complete document.

This document is a policy issued by the Hickman County Board of Education, specifically addressing expenses and reimbursements under Descriptor Code 2.804, with an issued date of February 7, 2022. It outlines the procedures for reimbursing school personnel for expenses incurred while performing their authorized duties, including travel expenses that require prior authorization from the director of schools. Additionally, it details the reimbursement process for board members traveling on official business and emphasizes that all expenses must be submitted within thirty days of completion. The document also references legal guidelines related to school accounting and reimbursement practices.

This document is the agenda for a special called meeting of the Hickman County Board of Education, scheduled for May 8, 2023, at 6:30 PM in Room 203 of the Central Office. The agenda includes a call to order, approval of the agenda, and items requiring board action, specifically budget amendments, Board Policy 2.804, and the 2023-2024 budgets for accounts 141 and 143. Additionally, it outlines announcements and concludes with an adjournment. The excerpt provides a glimpse into the topics that will be discussed, focusing on financial matters and policy review.

This document is a proposed budget for the Central Cafeteria Fund 143 of Hickman County, Tennessee, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. It outlines estimated revenues and expenditures, including detailed breakdowns of various revenue sources such as charges for current services and federal government contributions, particularly from the USDA School Lunch Program. The budget also provides a comparison of actual and estimated figures from previous years, highlighting changes in funding and expenses related to food services. The excerpt includes calculations for the estimated beginning and ending fund balances, indicating a projected deficit in the upcoming fiscal year.

This document is the agenda for a special called meeting of the Hickman County Board of Education scheduled for May 8, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 203 of the Central Office building. The agenda outlines the order of the meeting, which includes a call to order, a moment of silence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Key items requiring board action include budget amendments presented by the Business Officer, a review of Board Policy 2.804 concerning the Director of Schools, and discussions on the 2023-2024 budgets. The agenda concludes with announcements and an adjournment.