Hickman County TN

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

School Board · Meeting · Apr 25, 2024

Thu, Apr 25, 2024

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 focused almost entirely on a difficult first-pass school budget for FY 2025. Administrators said an initial fully funded draft with all programs, all positions, and a 5% raise was about $2.7 million above the board’s prior $2.2 million fund-balance target at the expected spending rate, and after a week of cuts they had reduced that gap to about $749,366. Major drivers included the end of ESSER and AWARE funding, declining enrollment, a loss of federal Title funding, and steep insurance increases. Board members debated whether to hold the line at $2.2 million, which administrators said would likely require deeper personnel cuts and probably reducing raises from 4% to 3%, or to allow a larger draw.

The board did not approve a final budget, but it did approve revised direction to work toward a $2.5 million target instead of $2.2 million, by roll-call vote. Other substantive threads included possible lunchroom indirect-cost charging to offset general-fund expenses, bus purchases cut from three to one, pressure to raise starting teacher pay toward $50,000, staffing reductions through retirements, resignations, non-renewals, and split assignments rather than a formal reduction in force, and efforts to grow future revenue through career and technical education and a proposed Jobs for America’s Graduates arrangement.

New Business / Agenda Items 37:53

Budget work session overview 38:02

  • 38:11 Administration said the first budget draft funded all programs, all positions, and a 5% across-the-board raise, but that approach left spending about $4,925,000 above draft expenditures and roughly $2.7 million above the board’s previously allowed $2.2 million reserve draw at the projected spending rate.
  • 39:22 The gap discussion was clarified as being based on an expected spending rate of about 93.98% rather than a literal fully spent line-item budget, with revenue estimates still uncertain because TISA and local tax figures were not final.
  • 41:18 After line-by-line review, administration presented a tightened second draft reducing the overage from about $2.7 million to about $749,366 above the $2.2 million target.

Budget reductions already made 41:34

  • 42:21 The first major reduction was lowering the proposed raise from 5% to 4% to keep compensation moving upward while reducing cost.
  • 42:40 The FY 2025 draft removed the AWARE program, described as costing about $36,000 per year; administrators said it was valuable but omitted because the gap was too large to preserve everything.
  • 43:30 The draft also assumes some vacancies will not be refilled due to retirements and resignations, plus about three likely non-renewals tied to performance.
  • 44:12 Administration stressed this was not yet a formal reduction in force for economic reasons; instead, the draft relied on attrition, non-replacement, reassignment, and performance-related non-renewals.
  • 45:27 Headcount reduction was estimated at about seven positions from retirements/resignations/non-renewals, or about 11 if the omitted AWARE positions are included.
  • 46:22 Administration cautioned the staffing picture was still moving because some ESSER-funded employees may shift into the general fund or federal programs such as Title, while others may leave.
  • 46:47 Two tenured STEM teachers in intermediate schools were cited as an unresolved issue: their ESSER-backed roles may end, but the district must place them elsewhere because they retain tenured status.

Current-year reserve draw and capital deferrals 47:39

  • 47:47 Administration said the board had authorized a $2.2 million draw from reserves for the current year, but the district now projects using about $1.1 million, roughly half the amount expected.
  • 48:04 The lower-than-expected draw was attributed partly to postponing capital projects.
  • 48:23 A specific example was dropping planned brick resealing at East Hickman Middle School because the building was not taking water and the work did not appear urgent.
  • 48:50 Administrators said the board’s earlier direction—state the limit, then require staff to build within it—had driven the week-long cuts and reprioritization around safety and instruction.

If the board holds to a $2.2 million target 50:00

  • 50:07 Administration said that if the board insists on staying at $2.2 million, another roughly $749,500 would need to come out of the draft.
  • 50:14 Reducing the raise from 4% to 3% would save about $200,000, but staff argued that cutting raises further risks competitiveness with neighboring districts.
  • 50:34 The remaining savings, after that raise reduction, would have to come largely from personnel.
  • 51:18 Administration estimated the district cost of a teacher at about $70,000 once benefits and employer obligations are included, meaning roughly eight teacher positions equal about $550,000–$770,000 in district cost.
  • 51:59 An aide was estimated at roughly $35,000–$40,000 in total district cost, so a savings package of similar size would require around 16 aide positions.
  • 52:16 Staff emphasized that the next round of reductions would be much more painful because easier cuts had already been made.

Transportation and bus purchases 52:23

  • 52:32 Board members asked whether the capital list still included bus purchases.
  • 52:45 Administration said the earlier board packet included $500,000 for three buses, but the revised draft in front of members had been cut back to one bus.
  • 53:23 Staff said buying only one bus per year is not enough to sustain the fleet long-term, but they considered it necessary for this year’s budget squeeze.
  • 54:45 Administration added that fewer students should eventually mean fewer bus routes, and transportation staff would look for a way to eliminate at least one route.

Enrollment decline, staffing pressure, and federal funding losses 53:46

  • 53:46 Administration corrected an earlier statement that enrollment was down by 200 students, but reaffirmed that enrollment had declined.
  • 54:18 Staff said the current seven-position reduction was driven more by retirements and performance-based non-renewals than by a direct formula tied to enrollment loss, though fewer students can support fewer teachers and fewer bus routes.
  • 55:10 Board members asked about a Title increase, prompting a broader explanation of federal funding shifts.
  • 55:29 Administration said some Title funds fell because allocations follow student population.
  • 55:45 The district also lost Title V, Part B rural funding; it received about $90,000 last year but lost eligibility when county child poverty measured by federal data fell below 20%.
  • 56:53 The county poverty figure cited was 19.4%, while administrators said poverty within the district itself is closer to 35%, arguing the countywide measure understates need because some local children attend private schools.
  • 57:31 Staff estimated federal program losses at about $120,000 when the Title changes were combined.

Insurance cost increases 57:31

  • 57:31 Administration said property insurance for buildings, buses, and vehicles increased by 177%.
  • 58:08 The practical budget impact was described as roughly $60,000–$70,000 in additional expense, though some cushion already existed in the lines.
  • 58:41 Insurance was described as being through Tennessee Risk Management, a school-district consortium intended to be cheaper than the open market.
  • 58:58 Staff said consortium rates have been affected by major school losses elsewhere, especially tornado damage, and by the concentration of multiple schools on single campuses.

Fund balance sustainability debate 59:52

  • 1:00:00 A board member walked through rough reserve scenarios: starting around $9.1 million, expecting a $2.2 million draw in the current budget year but now projecting around $1.1 million, leaving around $8 million.
  • 1:00:47 Using hypothetical future draws, the same member warned fund balance could fall to about $6.5 million by FY 2026 if larger reserve use continued, arguing the district could temporarily tolerate a higher draw but would need to taper down over multiple years.
  • 1:02:35 Another scenario suggested that if the district drew $2.9 million every year, reserves would effectively be exhausted by about 2030.
  • 1:03:40 Administration pushed back on optimistic assumptions that actual spending would come in far under a $2.9 million target, warning this draft was already much tighter than historic budgets, so a high target would likely translate into actual reserve use close to the amount budgeted.

Lunchroom indirect costs as a possible offset 1:04:52

  • 1:04:52 Administration raised a possible new strategy: charging indirect costs to the cafeteria fund, which the district is not currently doing.
  • 1:05:00 Staff said some lunchroom utility costs are currently being paid by the general fund, even though the cafeteria program has its own healthy balance.
  • 1:05:49 Administration had just begun consulting state child-nutrition contacts in Nashville on how much could legally and prudently be shifted.
  • 1:06:11 Staff cautioned against being too aggressive because cafeteria equipment in many schools is old and likely needs replacement.
  • 1:06:19 Administration estimated that every $70,000 charged in indirect costs could save the equivalent of about one teacher unit in the general fund.
  • 1:06:36 Board members recalled an older $500,000 transfer or loan history involving cafeteria finances and questioned whether the cafeteria balance primarily serves as a required cash-flow buffer.
  • 1:07:23 Administration said cafeteria finances are now stronger because all students are currently able to eat free for the next three years under a reimbursable meal arrangement.
  • 1:07:48 The cafeteria was said to need roughly a three-month balance of about $800,000, while current surplus was described as about $1 million, leaving some room for indirect charging if handled carefully.
  • 1:08:44 Members discussed a possible $70,000–$100,000 indirect-cost contribution, which would not solve the problem alone but could help shrink the overage while preserving needed cafeteria equipment purchases.

Structural concerns about future years 1:09:40

  • 1:09:48 Several members said the district’s problem is not just this year’s gap but the longer-term trend: declining enrollment, expiring grant funds, and the end of ESSER-paid capital work.
  • 1:11:04 Members asked whether staff had analyzed the budget deeply enough to identify specific programs the district may eventually stop offering if finances continue to tighten, rather than repeatedly making only broad reductions.
  • 1:11:37 Board discussion suggested future annual reserve draws should trend downward, with one member informally sketching a path such as $1.8 million, then $1 million, in later years.
  • 1:11:52 Administration said one unavoidable pressure is the need to push teacher salaries toward a $50,000 minimum.

Teacher pay, state minimums, and district competitiveness 1:12:02

  • 1:12:02 Administration said the 4% proposal keeps the district on track and still above the state’s required minimum teacher salary path; 3% would also stay above the minimum because prior increases helped get ahead of the mandate.
  • 1:12:18 Staff argued the most important long-term fix is stopping enrollment decline by improving school quality, safety, and community confidence.
  • 1:12:51 Administration estimated around 500 county children attend somewhere other than Hickman County Schools, and said even modest recapture of that population would help funding.
  • 1:13:14 Over roughly 10 years, property-tax support to the school district was said to have increased only about 2%, which staff contrasted with much faster growth in labor, insurance, food, fuel, and bus costs.
  • 1:13:31 A starting teacher salary with the proposed 4% increase was estimated at about $47,000.
  • 1:13:56 A new school bus was estimated around $150,000, compared with roughly $105,000–$110,000 a decade ago.

Career and technical education revenue strategy 1:14:47

  • 1:14:47 Administration said the state funding formula provides more funding for students in career and technical programs.
  • 1:14:56 The district is implementing CTE opportunities in grades 6–8 to increase future TISA funding.
  • 1:15:10 A module lab acquired through Mr. Chilton was described as a middle-school career exploration tool expected to involve all middle-school students.
  • 1:16:21 Administration said leadership has been working with middle-school principals and district staff to implement the CTE expansion.
  • 1:16:39 Staff argued CTE fits local student and workforce needs, citing strong trades demand such as HVAC.
  • 1:17:27 The move to a six-period day at the high school was also defended as a funding strategy because it gives students room to take additional CTE classes, which can increase district revenue.
  • 1:17:54 Early feedback from East Hickman High School was that some students appreciated being able to participate in athletics and still fit in a CTE class.

Vouchers, state budget uncertainty, and Title IX 1:18:38

  • 1:18:46 A board member referenced an email suggesting the governor might place more school money in the state budget, but administration said no dependable amount was yet known.
  • 1:19:17 Members discussed roughly $145 million left in the state budget after a voucher proposal failed this year, with skepticism that the money would become available for public schools rather than remain positioned for a future voucher push.
  • 1:19:31 Some members predicted the voucher bill would be more likely to pass in a non-election year.
  • 1:19:48 Members also raised concern that newly revised Title IX regulations taking effect in August could affect parent confidence and enrollment.
  • 1:20:20 Administration acknowledged recent Title IX changes expanding rights for transgender students and said the district would follow the law while reflecting local community values.

School nurses, SRO costs, and safety-related funding changes 1:21:01

  • 1:21:01 Board members noted the district had recently added several nurse positions and now has a nurse in every school.
  • 1:21:25 Administration said that in the new budget, a prior $50,000 local cost associated with SRO support in Centerville had been removed because a recently passed safety law now pays the town’s SRO cost, creating a $50,000 expenditure savings.

Spanish and geometry cost reductions 1:21:57

  • 1:22:03 Administration said the Spanish program had been very expensive in the prior year because the district paid about $65,000 at each high school for remote instruction and also paid facilitators at each site making about $20,000 each.
  • 1:22:34 Total Spanish cost last year was described at about $190,000–$195,000.
  • 1:22:42 For next year, the district expects to cut Spanish cost to about $80,000 by using an in-person teacher at one high school and a facilitator, Elsa Rodriguez, receiving instruction support from Miss Cook at the other school.
  • 1:23:35 Administration said geometry had also required a $65,000 remote arrangement plus a facilitator because the district could not hire a geometry teacher.
  • 1:23:45 A math teacher had been hired the previous day to teach geometry at East Hickman High School next year, eliminating that outsourced expense.
  • 1:24:34 Board members discussed whether the district could use more internal cross-school or screen-based teaching rather than outside vendors when one qualified teacher can cover both schools.
  • 1:25:05 Administration said some staff already split time between the two high schools and more split assignments are likely, though names were not given because staffing conversations were still ongoing.
  • 1:25:37 A hypothetical example was offered: if only one qualified teacher remains in a subject such as French, the district may ask that teacher to split time between both high schools to save a full salary.

Clarifying the board’s requested target 1:26:02

  • 1:26:02 Administration said the board needed to state its “bottom line”: keep the existing $2.2 million target, move somewhere in between, or accept the current roughly $2.9 million reserve-use level implied by the revised draft.
  • 1:26:28 Staff reiterated that keeping $2.2 million would mean more personnel reductions after any lunchroom offset and any 4% to 3% raise cut.

Budget line-item questions and salary-category changes 1:26:57

  • 1:27:12 Members clarified that the “draft two” figures already incorporated the major reductions and left the district about $749,366 above the $2.2 million target.
  • 1:27:38 Capital outlay was discussed, with about $832,000 in capital plus the bus amount listed separately.
  • 1:28:02 Board members asked about large increases in some supervisor/director salary lines.
  • 1:28:40 Finance staff explained some apparent spikes were due to positions added after the original prior-year budget was adopted, then patched in later through amendments, as well as some salaries previously split across federal lines such as Title V.
  • 1:30:34 One questioned line was identified as relating to Dr. Anderson; the increase reflected her salary and benefits now being fully and transparently budgeted in the proper line rather than spread across categories or arriving after the original budget was built.

Salary schedules and how a “4% raise” works 1:32:08

  • 1:32:08 Board members stressed that approving a budget target does not automatically require an identical flat percentage at every point on every salary schedule.
  • 1:32:48 Administration said the current draft assumes a 4% increase to each step, but because employees also advance by step, many actual individual raises would be more than 4%.
  • 1:32:57 An example was given that a first-year teacher moving from step zero to step one plus a 4% schedule increase could effectively receive about a 6% increase.
  • 1:33:35 Members noted the board has in prior years adjusted schedules strategically—for example, targeting veteran-teacher gaps with surrounding counties rather than “peanut-butter spreading” increases exactly evenly.
  • 1:34:14 One earlier comparison found as much as an $18,000 gap between Hickman County and neighboring systems for more veteran teachers.
  • 1:35:02 Administration said the district is more competitive at the low end of the teacher scale than at the high end.
  • 1:36:12 Staff argued a flat-dollar raise is less fair to lower-paid employees, but acknowledged the board has discretion when it later adopts actual schedules.

Bus-driver staffing and benefits 1:36:36

  • 1:36:43 Administration said the district remains short on bus drivers, causing late routes, double routes, and operational strain.
  • 1:37:17 Staff suggested a future policy change to treat bus drivers as full-time employees so they could receive health insurance immediately rather than only after a year, saying this could improve recruitment and retention.
  • 1:38:14 Transportation reportedly has three or four prospective drivers in the pipeline, but staffing remains fragile.
  • 1:38:45 Administrators said mechanics, maintenance staff, and even some teachers are helping drive buses when needed, underscoring the shortage.
  • 1:39:31 Members recalled prior discussion of bus-driver stipends or other compensation adjustments and tied that concern to the larger benefits discussion.
  • 1:40:20 Finance staff said they could calculate the budget effect of broader benefit eligibility if the board wants that option explored.

Local revenue mix: property tax vs. sales tax 1:40:37

  • 1:40:37 Members argued the district has repeatedly absorbed losses in property-tax support while trying to maintain operations.
  • 1:41:11 Administration said the property-tax amount in the FY 2024 school budget is only about $40,000 more than in 2013.
  • 1:41:27 Members noted county officials often answer that sales-tax receipts have risen instead.
  • 1:52:31 A member argued that county decisions not to develop retail heavily shaped that revenue mix, leaving schools more dependent on property tax than in counties with stronger local-option sales tax bases.
  • 1:54:48 Finance staff emphasized that the school system receives 50% of whatever local-option sales tax the county collects, regardless of budgeted estimate, but property-tax revenue depends on the number of school pennies actually levied and budgeted.
  • 1:55:13 Staff warned that moving school support away from property tax and toward sales tax can effectively reduce next year’s school revenues, because schools get the sales-tax share anyway while property-tax pennies are the part that can be permanently lost from the base.
  • 1:57:47 The prior year’s budget had projected about $2,455,000 in sales tax, and the new draft raises that estimate based on actual collections and the county’s reported monthly trends.

Employee health-insurance budgeting questions 1:58:56

  • 1:58:56 Board members asked whether the budget increased the district share of employee insurance because some staff paid more out of pocket last year.
  • 1:59:16 Finance staff said employee-only coverage remains structured at a 70/30 maximum participation arrangement with a district amount around $7,900; some top-tier plan choices may still require employees to pay a monthly premium.
  • 2:00:25 Finance estimated a 7% premium increase for budgeting purposes, though actual rates were not yet available.
  • 2:00:33 Some prior “cushion” was reduced in the new draft because the district did not experience a large jump in enrollment into the plans after earlier eligibility changes.
  • 2:01:02 Members again noted that the district budgets health-insurance conservatively because it must plan for worst-case participation.
  • 2:10:09 The board requested better figures on how many employees are on insurance.
  • 2:10:25 Finance said an older figure was about 247 insured employees.
  • 2:10:42 Administration estimated roughly 430 school-system employees excluding food service and about 470 when food service is included, excluding substitutes and avoiding double-counting some bus drivers.
  • 2:11:09 One member floated whether, if a full 4% raise proves unaffordable, a smaller increase in the employer insurance contribution—such as another $10 or more—might provide targeted help instead.

Christmas bonuses and employee culture 2:11:33

  • 2:11:33 A board member said the district has historically given a Christmas bonus each year, with the amount sometimes reflecting whether the year was financially strong or lean.
  • 2:12:19 The same discussion emphasized that employee retention depends not only on salary, but also on treatment, workplace culture, and the value of working close to home.

Program-priority and cut-list discussion 1:42:03

  • 1:42:03 Members returned to the earlier strategic question of whether the district should identify lower-priority programs for eventual reduction if recurring deficits continue.
  • 1:43:40 When asked what additional cuts would look like, administration said they would likely come from staffing ratios rather than eliminating core grade levels.
  • 1:44:29 An example was given: if a school had unusually low student-to-teacher ratios in a grade or subject, one teaching position might be removed and remaining staff reassigned across grades to stay within class-size limits while raising ratios.
  • 1:45:41 Administration introduced another possible revenue improvement through Jobs for America’s Graduates, a soft-skills and career-readiness program.

Jobs for America’s Graduates proposal 1:45:41

  • 1:45:41 Administration said Jobs for America’s Graduates would support employability “soft skills” while also counting as career-tech enrollment.
  • 1:46:21 A representative identified as John Dwyer was said to be leading the program effort the district discussed.
  • 1:46:34 The district was told it could receive $55,000 per high school, or $110,000 total, if it commits to teaching three class periods of the program.
  • 1:47:08 Administrators said that revenue would let the district move $55,000 of an existing teacher’s payroll off the general fund.
  • 1:47:16 A memorandum of understanding will need board approval at the next meeting, and the current budget assumptions are contingent on that expected approval.

Motion on revised budget target 2:01:40

  • 2:01:40 The chair summarized the practical question: whether staff should continue working toward $2.2 million, $2.9 million, or some amount in between.
  • 2:02:32 Members generally agreed the board should set a broad target and leave the exact mix of savings to administration rather than micromanaging line items.
  • 2:03:07 Administration said whatever number is chosen, staff will keep looking daily for additional savings, conservative assumptions, and possible favorable corrections, but no large positive error had yet been found.
  • 2:05:17 A motion was made to raise the budget-development target from $2.2 million to $2.5 million.
  • 2:07:59 Administration asked for time to keep refining personnel options and to finish exploring cafeteria indirect costs, saying a motion that night was not strictly necessary, but members concluded some formal direction was needed because the prior motion still set $2.2 million as the target.
  • 2:14:38 The motion to change the target from $2.2 million to $2.5 million was renewed and seconded.
  • 2:15:11 Roll-call vote approved the revised target unanimously, with recorded “yes” votes from the members named in the transcript.
  • 2:15:52 Members noted the target remains interim and can still be adjusted at the next meeting.

Closing budget comments 2:16:17

  • 2:16:34 Administration reiterated the district is trying to grow revenue through career-tech participation and improve next year’s TISA allocation.
  • 2:17:08 Staff said the push toward a $50,000 starting teacher salary is a major factor complicating the budget, but argued veteran salaries also must continue rising.
  • 2:17:30 Administration again lamented the loss of AWARE and said it had even considered asking county government to fund it because stronger school mental-health supports could reduce future county incarceration and mental-health costs.
  • 2:18:07 The district was described as one of only four in the state to receive the original AWARE-related support after state officials identified a need in Hickman County.
  • 2:18:15 Members said there may still be unassigned mental-health money at the governor’s level, and that State Representative Jody Barrett had indicated he might ask for such support.
  • 2:18:53 Some members said that if the board seeks more county funding, it should ask for general operating support rather than tying the request to a single earmarked program like AWARE.
  • 2:20:09 A member contrasted the teacher-pay struggle with the state’s hiring of 100 new troopers at a starting salary of about $56,000, arguing education is being undervalued.
  • 2:21:02 Members closed by expressing confidence that administration will continue trying to control spending even after a budget is adopted.

Adjournment 2:20:43

  • The committee agreed to reconvene the following Thursday for continued budget work, with no final FY 2025 budget adopted at this meeting.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
5% Percentage Original across-the-board raise in first draft 38:31
$4,925,000 Budget amount Amount above draft expenditures in initial fully funded approach 38:55
$2.2 million Reserve draw target Board’s previously allotted fund-balance use 39:05
$2.7 million Budget gap Amount above the board’s $2.2 million target in early draft 39:12
93.98% Percentage Projected spending rate used in budget assumptions 39:29
$749,366 Budget gap Remaining amount above the $2.2 million target in revised draft 41:50
4% Percentage Revised across-the-board compensation proposal in draft two 42:30
$36,000 Program cost Approximate annual AWARE program cost omitted from the draft 42:45
3 Headcount Likely non-renewals for performance built into draft assumptions 43:51
7 Headcount Estimated staffing reduction excluding AWARE positions 45:27
11 Headcount Estimated staffing reduction including AWARE-related positions 45:36
2 Headcount Tenured STEM teachers still needing placement after ESSER changes 46:47
$1.1 million Reserve draw Current-year projected reserve use versus earlier $2.2 million authorization 47:47
50% Percentage Current-year reserve draw is about half the amount previously expected 48:04
$200,000 Savings Estimated savings from lowering raises from 4% to 3% 50:14
8 Headcount Approximate number of teacher positions equivalent to major savings needed after raise reduction 51:10
$70,000 Employment cost Approximate district cost of one teacher including benefits 51:43
16 Headcount Approximate aide positions equivalent to similar savings 51:59
$35,000–$40,000 Employment cost Approximate district cost of one aide including benefits 52:07
$500,000 Capital amount Earlier draft bus expenditure for three buses 52:45
3 Headcount Buses in earlier draft 52:52
1 Headcount Bus retained in revised draft 53:00
$300,000 Savings Approximate bus-related reduction from cutting three buses to one 53:00
200 Headcount Earlier overstatement of enrollment decline later corrected 53:46
$90,000 Revenue loss Title V, Part B amount received last year and now lost 55:54
20% Percentage Poverty threshold tied to Title V, Part B eligibility 55:45
19.4% Percentage County child-poverty figure that dropped below Title V threshold 56:53
35% Percentage Approximate poverty level within the school district, per administration 57:03
177% Percentage Increase in property/building/vehicle insurance costs 57:31
$120,000 Revenue loss Approximate combined federal-program loss discussed 58:08
$60,000–$70,000 Expense increase Practical added insurance expense absorbed in budget lines 58:08
$9.1 million Fund balance Approximate starting reserve discussed for current-year scenario 1:00:09
$8 million Fund balance Rough reserve level after current-year draw in board estimate 1:00:30
$6.5 million Fund balance Hypothetical FY 2026 reserve level under continued draws 1:00:56
2029 Year Last year repeated $2.9 million reserve draws were said to be feasible 1:02:42
2030 Year Year reserves were said to hit zero under that repeated draw scenario 1:02:50
$500,000 Fund balance history Prior cafeteria loan/transfer from general fund discussed by members 1:05:14
$70,000 Savings / offset Approximate cafeteria indirect-cost amount equal to one teacher unit 1:06:19
3 years Time period Universal free meals reimbursement period discussed 1:07:32
3 months Time period Suggested cafeteria reserve buffer requirement 1:07:41
$800,000 Fund balance Approximate cafeteria three-month reserve target 1:07:48
$1 million Fund balance Approximate cafeteria current surplus 1:08:03
$70,000–$100,000 Revenue offset Potential indirect-cost amount discussed from cafeteria fund 1:08:44
500 Headcount Approximate county children not attending Hickman County Schools 1:12:51
2% Percentage Approximate increase in school property-tax support over ten years 1:13:14
$47,000 Salary Approximate starting teacher pay with proposed 4% raise 1:13:31
$150,000 Equipment cost Approximate current cost of a new school bus 1:13:56
$105,000–$110,000 Equipment cost Approximate school-bus cost a decade ago 1:14:05
6–8 Grade span Middle-school grades targeted for new CTE implementation 1:14:56
6 Count / schedule Six-period day defended as a CTE access and funding strategy 1:17:27
$145 million State budget amount Money members said remained set aside after voucher failure 1:19:17
$50,000 Expense savings SRO-related local cost removed from new budget 1:21:34
$65,000 Program cost Per-school remote Spanish cost last year 1:22:03
$20,000 Staffing cost Approximate facilitator pay in Spanish model 1:22:18
$190,000–$195,000 Program cost Total prior-year Spanish cost 1:22:34
$80,000 Program cost Projected Spanish cost for next year after restructuring 1:23:15
$65,000 Program cost Geometry remote instruction cost before hiring in-house teacher 1:23:35
$832,000 Capital amount Capital outlay figure discussed apart from bus purchase 1:27:38
4% Percentage Draft-two step raise assumption 1:28:17
6% Percentage Effective increase example for a first-year teacher moving steps 1:33:03
$18,000 Salary gap Earlier veteran-teacher gap with neighboring districts 1:34:29
3 or 4 Headcount Prospective bus drivers in recruitment pipeline 1:38:14
$40,000 Revenue growth Difference between 2013 and 2024 property-tax amount in school budget 1:41:11
14 Student count Example of low ratio: 14 students per two 8th-grade English teachers 1:44:38
28 Student count Example combined class size if staffing were consolidated 1:44:54
$55,000 Grant / revenue Jobs for America’s Graduates funding per high school 1:46:34
$110,000 Grant / revenue Total JAG funding for two high schools 1:46:34
3 Class count Number of JAG periods the district would commit to teach 1:46:50
$55,000 Payroll offset Existing teacher payroll that could move off general fund 1:47:08
50% Percentage School system share of county local-option sales tax 1:54:39
93% Percentage Approximate property-tax collection level referenced in budgeting 1:55:54
$2,455,000 Revenue estimate Prior-year projected sales-tax amount 1:57:47
70/30 Ratio Employee insurance participation structure discussed 1:59:16
$7,900 Benefit amount District insurance contribution figure referenced 1:59:16
$20 per month Premium Example employee-only top-tier out-of-pocket premium 1:59:37
7% Percentage Estimated insurance premium increase used in budgeting 2:00:25
2.5 Budget target New reserve-draw target approved for continued budget work 2:05:17
2.0 Budget target idea Informal future-year taper example from a member 2:06:33
1.5 Budget target idea Informal later-year taper example from a member 2:06:33
70% Percentage Share of district budget said to be salary and benefits 2:06:58
$44,096 Salary Approximate current minimum teacher salary cited 2:07:05
$5,500 Salary increase Needed minimum-salary increase over two years to reach target 2:07:13
247 Headcount Older figure for employees on insurance 2:10:25
430 Headcount Approximate employees excluding food service and substitutes 2:10:42
470 Headcount Approximate employees including food service 2:11:00
4 Count Hickman County described as one of four districts receiving the earlier grant support 2:18:07
100 Headcount New troopers hired by the state, per member comment 2:20:09
$56,000 Salary Starting salary for new troopers cited in comparison to teachers 2:20:19

External vendors, brands, and software

Name Type Context / topic Timestamp
YouTube Brand Public livestream / viewing platform referenced at opening 37:53
Tennessee Risk Management Company School insurance consortium handling district property and related coverage 58:41
Zion Brand Private-school option cited in discussion of county poverty calculations and enrollment loss 56:30
Columbia Academy Brand Private-school option cited in discussion of county poverty calculations and enrollment loss 56:30
Jobs for America’s Graduates Brand Proposed career-readiness program tied to future revenue and MOU 1:45:41
John Dwyer Individual Program contact / leader mentioned in JAG discussion 1:46:21
TSBA Company Referenced in discussion of vote procedure and salary / state conversations 1:15:27
TISA Software State funding system repeatedly referenced as an unsettled budget driver 40:32

Personnel changes

Name Role / office Change Context / topic Timestamp
Dr. Anderson District administrator / supervisor Hired Added after the original prior-year budget was built; FY 2025 lines now show full salary and benefits in proper categories 1:30:34
Elsa Rodriguez Spanish facilitator Transferred Will continue at East Hickman High School in Spanish support under revised lower-cost model for next year 1:22:57

Laws and policies

Citation / name Level Type Context / topic Timestamp
TISA State Policy State school-funding formula not finalized at time of budget discussion; also cited as rewarding CTE participation 40:32
Title V, Part B Federal Policy Rural-school federal funding lost when county poverty measure fell below eligibility threshold 55:45
Title IX Federal Law Members discussed newly revised regulations taking effect in August and possible local effects 1:19:48