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 2, 2024

Thu, May 2, 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 the FY 2025 school budget, especially how far to dip into reserves, which ESSER-funded positions or programs to continue, and how to handle a proposed 4% salary increase. Administrators said new revenue and cost offsets reduced the reserve draw from roughly $2.9 million to about $2.4949 million, allowing the draft to keep the two fifth-grade STEM teachers and a reduced AWARE mental-health program while still staying under the board’s $2.5 million target. Board members largely supported the work but debated whether the district was postponing harder structural decisions into next year, since $200,000 in one-time ESSER salary support will disappear.

The sharpest dispute was over salaries: some members wanted to approve the budget while reserving flexibility to later redistribute the raise more strategically across pay scales, especially for lower-paid staff such as bus drivers, aides, cafeteria workers, and clerical staff. That motion failed 4–4 (with one member absent), and a simpler motion approving the budget committee recommendation with a 4% across-the-board step increase passed 5–2. Other notable threads included Medicaid reimbursement for nursing services, indirect cost recovery from school nutrition, projected CTE/TISA funding growth, an upcoming $55,000 per high school JAG funding item, a planned VOIP phone conversion to replace AT&T rentals and save about $5,000 per month, and discussion of future meeting dates before the county deadline.

New Business / Agenda Items 16:12

Budget discussion and revised FY 2025 draft 17:13

  • 17:30 Administrators said the board’s prior direction was to get $2.9 million into reserve and avoid exceeding a $2.5 million reserve draw; since the prior meeting, several positive changes reduced the draft’s gap.
  • 18:00 A revised TISA allocation increased projected revenue by $114,000 after updated state fiscal-capacity indicators were applied.
  • 19:35 Staff said the Tennessee Department of Education confirmed a lawful way to use $200,000 in ESSER funds for the first two to three months of salaries tied to learning-loss work, specifically special education assistants and RTI-related teaching support.
  • 20:23 The district began billing Medicaid for eligible nursing services delivered at school to Medicaid-covered students; administration estimated current billing at about $200 per school day and built $36,000 in revenue into next year’s budget.
  • 20:46 Administration proposed charging indirect costs to school nutrition operations for utilities, garbage, and related overhead now being paid from the general fund; the budget only assumed $15,000 although staff believed the actual recoverable amount might be closer to $30,000.
  • 22:23 Staff found one teaching position that could be absorbed into two teacher-assistant positions, helping reduce the budget gap further.
  • 22:38 Combining those changes reduced the problem from roughly $495,000 over target to about $95,000 over before adding back selected priorities.

ESSER-funded programs retained: AWARE and fifth-grade STEM 22:47

  • 22:47 Administration said two items omitted from the prior draft were now proposed for retention: fifth-grade STEM teachers at both intermediate schools and a scaled-down AWARE mental-health program.
  • 24:04 On AWARE, staff said the original structure had 4 positions: 1 director and 3 employees. The director had already found other employment, and one counseling employee had also found another job.
  • 24:29 The district also secured 2 no-cost mental-health liaisons through Tennessee Voices, including one already serving Hickman County High School daily and another planned for East Hickman Middle/East Hickman High.
  • 25:23 The revised budget retained the 2 remaining AWARE employees, with salaries and benefits totaling about $125,000.
  • 25:50 Administration argued AWARE, like SROs and nurses, is a student-safety function; while the district cannot afford a full mental-health presence in every school, retaining two employees plus two free outside liaisons would preserve the same total number of mental-health workers as the prior year.
  • 27:05 Staff said future growth of mental-health services might come through Medicaid rule changes, grants, or intern placements; they specifically noted Tennessee does not currently allow Medicaid reimbursement for counseling.
  • 27:40 The draft also restored the 2 fifth-grade STEM teachers, and administration emphasized that with these restorations there were no program cuts in the proposed budget, though there were still personnel cuts.

Questions on ESSER salary support, Medicaid billing, and sustainability 28:18

  • 28:18 Board members questioned the $200,000 ESSER shift, asking whether RTI positions were general fund or federal; administration said some intervention positions are Title-funded while others are general fund, and this shift affects the general-fund side.
  • 29:31 Members asked whether the district had actually been reimbursed for Medicaid billing or was only submitting claims; administration said some reimbursement had likely already been received and current billing supports the estimate.
  • 30:37 A board member confirmed the revised reserve draw was about $2.4949 million, just under the $2.5 million target.
  • 31:00 A caution was raised that if AWARE had been cut and the district had stuck more closely to the earlier lower target, the budget problem would only be deferred: the $200,000 ESSER bridge is one-time money and will not recur next year.
  • 32:23 Members described this as one of the hardest budgets in recent memory because recent ESSER years had cushioned the district from making deeper structural reductions.
  • 33:28 Administration agreed ESSER was one-time money but argued it also boosted reserves indirectly by paying for capital needs the district otherwise would have funded itself.

Capital-project context and transportation savings 33:36

  • 33:36 Discussion noted ESSER had covered major facilities work, including plumbing, roofs, HVAC, windows, doors, and safety improvements, reducing pressure on local funds.
  • 34:32 East Hickman Elementary’s plumbing problems and a past Hickman County High School roof/HVAC project were cited as examples of expensive building needs that otherwise would have hit the district and county budget.
  • 36:50 Administration said the FY 2025 draft includes a smaller capital-project amount partly because of the recent ESSER-funded improvement cycle.
  • 36:58 Staff said the district cannot sustainably buy only 1 bus per year, but prior purchases of 13 propane buses at roughly 50% off had saved about $600,000, helping reduce this year’s transportation pressure.
  • 37:28 Administration clarified the draft budget still includes a 4% raise and said those savings and prior investments helped make that possible without changing the raise assumption.

Staffing, enrollment, and future revenue arguments 37:56

  • 37:56 Administration argued the district is also trying to improve future revenue, not only cut costs.
  • 38:05 Both high schools have moved to a six-period day, which staff said should increase participation in Career and Technical Education and produce more TISA funding.
  • 38:13 Both middle schools are also expected to offer sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade career-tech courses, also intended to increase state funding.
  • 38:22 Administration said each additional qualifying CTE student can bring about $5,000, and one member suggested even 20 more students would be meaningful.
  • 38:30 Staff said Medicaid reimbursement should grow because the district only started billing this year.
  • 38:37 Kindergarten registration was described as strong, and officials emphasized that enrollment growth drives state funding under TISA and other formulas.
  • 39:10 Members countered that next year’s budget may still worsen because the district will lose the $200,000 ESSER bridge and may need to purchase 2 buses.

How many ESSER positions remain, and whether jobs are being created 39:35

  • 39:35 A board member asked how many ESSER employees the district currently has; administration said there had been about 25 ESSER employees this year, later corrected to a list of 24.
  • 39:53 Staff said about 10 part-time ESSER teacher-aide positions are not carried in the new budget, and the ESSER manager position is also not in the draft.
  • 40:02 Some ESSER-funded teachers, including the STEM teachers, have tenure rights and therefore must be placed somewhere in the system if those specific program slots are not continued.
  • 40:34 A member argued the board needed clarity on how many ESSER-created positions were being continued because once positions are created, future reductions become more difficult and may trigger reduction-in-force rules.
  • 41:29 The budget discussion turned to authorized versus actually filled positions; staff said actual employee counts are lower than budget-authorized counts and that vacant slots complicate year-to-year comparisons.
  • 42:36 A member pressed for the financial cushion from unfilled jobs, asking how much lower actual spending was than budgeted amounts.
  • 44:20 Administration and members noted that budgets always include some vacant positions and state-required salary assumptions, which can inflate comparison lines.
  • 45:42 Members refocused the question: not how many individual people remained employed, but how many actual ESSER-created positions were still embedded in the FY 2025 budget.
  • 47:13 Legal/administrative discussion noted that some prior ESSER positions had already been absorbed because of changes in law or operational need, and some employees had moved back into regular positions.
  • 48:50 One member summarized that the district seemed to be creating at least 2 AWARE positions, and perhaps also retaining the 2 STEM jobs.
  • 49:29 A legal concern was raised that newly created positions can be difficult to remove later except under reduction-in-force criteria, especially when tied to declining enrollment.
  • 50:18 Members warned that creating jobs while student counts fall could be unsustainable even if feasible while reserves remain high.

Position-count clarifications and net staffing reduction 50:28

  • 50:28 Discussion shifted to the cost of raises; staff said a 4% raise was about $800,000, or roughly $200,000 per 1%.
  • 50:52 Members asked how much more would eventually be needed to meet the governor’s $50,000 teacher-pay threshold; the response suggested about another 5% at the low end, though not necessarily as a universal raise.
  • 51:28 Administration reviewed the ESSER list and said there were 24 employees on it, excluding some other part-time assistants.
  • 52:20 At East Hickman Middle, the ATSI-funded role discussed was said to be mostly grant-supported rather than a new permanent local burden.
  • 52:37 An instructional coach position was said to be ending, with that employee moving back into a full-time teaching role.
  • 53:20 Administration stressed that the reserve draw had been reduced from $2.2 million approved for the current year to about $1.1 million in one portion of the discussion, then emphasized that the FY 2025 draft being debated was the best balance they could produce under the board’s latest reserve-draw target.
  • 54:13 Members asked for future years’ extra-revenue ideas to be quantified, rather than discussed only in general terms.
  • 56:31 When pressed again on how many ESSER positions remained, administration first estimated 16 of the listed employees were still in the budget in some form, but finance staff clarified that only about 3 actual ESSER-origin positions were still directly in the budget as such, including the 2 STEM positions and a technology specialist.
  • 58:21 Staff said there had been 190 teacher positions budgeted in a prior count but only about 178 filled; current planning suggested about 185–186 budgeted positions.
  • 58:49 Administration previewed a Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG) item to be brought later, which would bring $55,000 for each high school and allow shifting salary expense for one teacher at each school out of general education.
  • 59:30 Administration said there had been actual personnel cuts in the 141 budget line.
  • 1:11:03 Members tried to reconcile cuts and restorations: from 24 ESSER-related positions this year, only about 3 ESSER-origin positions remain directly carried; beyond that, administration said there was still a net reduction of about 10 positions districtwide after accounting for AWARE and STEM restorations and newly found savings.
  • 1:13:03 Administration summarized the policy choice plainly: not funding AWARE would reduce the reserve draw by about $125,000–$130,000; not funding the 2 STEM teachers would reduce it by another roughly $140,000, moving the reserve draw from about $2.494 million down toward $2.22 million.
  • 1:13:44 Staff cautioned that eliminating STEM would not automatically remove the full cost because those tenured teachers would still have to be placed elsewhere as vacancies arise.

Reserve philosophy, county funding, and competitiveness 1:04:55

  • 1:04:55 A lengthy exchange followed on whether dipping into reserves is appropriate or merely forced by inadequate county support.
  • 1:05:10 Administration and some members argued the district had repeatedly been told by county officials that it would not get more money until it started using reserve funds, so reserve draw is now being shown not by preference but by necessity.
  • 1:06:20 Officials said school requirements and mandated services are broader than in past decades, while supervisory staffing remains lean so schools can be staffed more directly.
  • 1:07:06 One speaker said some employees could make about $20,000 more in a neighboring county but remain because of commitment to the local community.
  • 1:07:39 Members argued that the county itself carries a larger reserve percentage than the schools, yet school reserves are the ones regularly cited.
  • 1:08:42 Administration said if reserve spending for a few years is what it takes to force the community and elected officials to confront school funding needs, then that is the present reality.
  • 1:10:29 Staff said budgeted and filled positions have both gone down, and they described the district as becoming more efficient next year despite the controversy.
  • 1:16:32 Administration said school-district property-tax receipts had increased only about 2% since 2013, while sales-tax growth has been stronger.
  • 1:16:54 Members noted Hickman County historically has had one of the highest property-tax rates in the area, limiting appetite for further increases.
  • 1:17:50 Poverty rates and fiscal capacity were discussed as constraints on both county and school decisions; Hickman County’s poverty rate was cited at about 16.3%, compared with 17.5% in Lewis County, 17.6% in Perry County, and about 10.8% in Maury County.
  • 1:21:24 Fiscal-capacity measures identified as CBER and TACIR were described as affecting state funding; the county was said to be around the 16th lowest in fiscal capacity, with Hickman listed around 0.74 and Maury around 1.36.
  • 1:22:23 Administration returned to AWARE, arguing that trauma and mental-health needs are severe and were substantial enough that Hickman was one of only 5 counties chosen for the original program.

Salary raise structure dispute 1:23:29

  • 1:23:29 A board member praised the budget work overall but argued the proposed 4% raise needed more thought on distribution, not just whether to include it.
  • 1:24:05 A motion was made to approve the budget as presented while reserving later board consideration of how the 4% salary increase would actually be implemented through salary schedules.
  • 1:24:13 Debate followed over whether budget approval already locked in the salary structure or whether salary schedules are always approved separately later.
  • 1:25:19 Multiple members said the board regularly approves salary schedules separately from the budget and could still revisit salary tables, but others objected to attaching that caveat to the budget motion.
  • 1:27:18 Supporters of later review argued that a flat 4% percentage gives much larger dollar gains to higher-paid employees than to lower-paid support staff.
  • 1:29:24 Members recalled prior years when the board had strategically altered schedules or steps to address shortages or inequities rather than applying a simple “peanut butter spread.”
  • 1:30:57 Administration added another complication: all remaining ESSER funds must be obligated by December, and the district plans to use some for one-time retention support.
  • 1:32:14 Staff disclosed a planned districtwide phone-system purchase with ESSER funds, replacing rented AT&T phones and long-distance service with voice over Internet Protocol service, for expected savings of about $5,000 per month.
  • 1:32:55 Administration said the district will probably still have some ESSER funds left after planned purchases and may use them for an ESSER retention bonus, with the possibility of weighting that bonus toward lower-paid support staff.
  • 1:34:07 Members debating salary strategy used bus drivers as an example, asking why the district should not consider larger percentage gains for hard-to-fill support roles and smaller gains for upper-tier salaries.
  • 1:35:08 Administration replied that pay gaps with neighboring districts are often worse not at entry level but among advanced-degree and experienced teachers, so strategic adjustments could point upward on the teacher schedule as well.
  • 1:36:10 Another member interpreted the administration’s view as: keep the 4% step increase in the budget now, then potentially address support-staff inequities later with ESSER retention money rather than by altering the core salary budget.

Budget formatting and grant items still to be incorporated 1:38:16

  • 1:38:16 Finance staff said the final 141 budget to be presented at the regular board meeting would also include about $1.7 million in Innovative School Model carryover funds budgeted equally as revenue and expenditure.
  • 1:39:09 Staff also referenced a $75,000 grant for 2 special education pre-K assistants, again budget-neutral because it is reimbursable.
  • 1:40:06 Members clarified that this meeting was functioning as a budget-committee action and that a full board vote would still occur later on the official spreadsheet format sent to the county.

First motion fails on salary-language dispute 1:41:16

  • 1:41:16 Some members said the first motion was defective because it attempted to approve the budget “with exceptions,” while others thought it simply reflected the board’s normal later salary-schedule review.
  • 1:42:53 Administration pointed out that a “4% step raise” can mean more than 4% in actual pay growth for employees advancing a step, citing one example of a veteran teacher with a master’s degree receiving about 6.2% when step movement and schedule increase are combined.
  • 1:48:52 The motion was reworded to approve the budget as presented with a 4% increase to salary steps, while still noting salary schedules are approved separately.
  • 1:49:24 Roll-call vote on that motion: Yes from Mr. Willis, Miss Mays, and Mr. Lane; No from Mr. Hudgins, Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Gianakos, and Miss Baker. The motion failed 4–4. Mr. Hudgins was absent earlier in the meeting but present for these votes; one seat appears still not voting because of attendance/recording context.

Second motion passes budget committee recommendation 1:50:03

  • 1:50:03 After the failed motion, members revisited prior practice, including last year’s salary-structure changes for lower-paid employees and prior strategic analyses under earlier administrations.
  • 1:53:45 A new motion was made and seconded to pass the budget with a 4% across-the-board step raise, without the additional salary-schedule caveat.
  • 1:54:17 Debate continued briefly, with one member saying the board should not approve a simple percentage increase “because we’re lazy,” while another countered that detailed salary design is what the administration is paid to recommend.
  • 1:56:11 Members also noted time pressure and the possibility of additional meetings before the county deadline.
  • 1:57:20 Roll-call vote on the second motion:
    • 1:57:38 Yes: Miss Baker.
    • 1:57:38 Mr. Gianakos stated a conflict-of-interest disclosure because family members are school-system employees, but said his vote would answer to conscience and constituents; he voted No.
    • 1:58:19 Yes: Mr. Hobbs.
    • 1:58:19 Yes: Mr. Hudgins.
    • 1:58:19 Yes: Mr. Lane.
    • 1:58:29 Yes: Miss Mays.
    • 1:58:29 Mr. Willis invoked the same conflict-of-interest statement without rereading it; he voted No.
  • 1:58:52 The final tally was 5 yes, 2 no; the motion carried and the budget committee recommendation was sent forward.

Announcements 1:59:02

  • 1:59:02 Members discussed whether another meeting might be needed after Monday and before the county deadline on the 14th if the full board did not pass the budget at the next meeting.
  • 1:59:55 Staff suggested the 9th, 13th, or 14th as possible fallback dates, including the possibility of meeting shortly before the county body meets, as had occurred the previous year.
  • 2:01:22 The group agreed not to set another date immediately and instead to revisit the matter Monday if needed.

Adjournment 2:01:42

  • 2:01:42 A motion to adjourn was entertained following the scheduling discussion.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
$2.9 million Reserve draw / budget gap target Initial expenditure-trimming context from prior budget meeting 17:37
$2.5 million Reserve draw cap Board guidance not to exceed this reserve use 17:44
$114,000 Revenue increase Updated TISA allocation 18:00
$200,000 One-time funding ESSER salary support for first 2–3 months of learning-loss-related positions 19:48
2 to 3 months Time period Duration of ESSER salary bridge 19:48
$200 per school day Billing rate Current Medicaid nursing reimbursement billing pace 20:40
$36,000 Revenue estimate Medicaid reimbursement built into FY 2025 budget 20:46
$15,000 Revenue estimate Conservative indirect-cost recovery from school nutrition 22:23
$30,000 Revenue estimate Administration’s higher estimate for possible nutrition indirect-cost recovery 22:14
$495,000 Budget gap Amount over target before selected restorations were evaluated 22:38
$95,000 Budget gap Amount over target after positive budget changes 22:47
2 Positions Fifth-grade STEM teachers restored to draft 22:55
4 Positions Original AWARE staffing: 1 director + 3 employees 24:04
2 Positions Remaining AWARE employees retained in draft 25:23
$125,000 Salary/benefit cost Cost of the 2 remaining AWARE employees 25:31
1 Staffing count SRO at every school used as adequacy benchmark 25:58
$2.4949 million Reserve draw Revised FY 2025 draw in draft budget 30:45
$125,000 Program cost AWARE amount that would come out if cut 31:09
$140,000 Program cost Approximate cost of the 2 STEM teachers 31:09
$2.2 million Reserve draw Current-year budget dip referenced in discussion 53:20
13 Buses Prior propane-bus purchase 37:05
50% Discount Discount achieved on prior propane-bus purchase 37:12
$600,000 Savings Savings from prior propane-bus purchase 37:12
4% Salary increase Proposed raise built into draft budget 37:28
$5,000 Per-student funding Estimated extra TISA funding per additional CTE student 38:05
25 Employees Approximate ESSER employees initially cited 39:35
24 Employees ESSER employee list later referenced 51:28
10 Positions Part-time ESSER aide positions not continued 39:53
$800,000 Salary cost Approximate cost of 4% raise 50:28
$200,000 Salary cost per 1% Approximate cost per 1% raise 50:28
$50,000 Salary threshold Governor’s teacher-pay target referenced 50:52
5% Salary increase Approximate additional increase discussed to hit threshold floor 50:52
16 Employees Initial estimate of listed ESSER employees still in budget in some form 57:08
3 Positions ESSER-origin positions said to remain directly in budget 57:33
190 Budgeted positions Prior-year teacher-position authorization referenced 58:21
178 Filled positions Approximate filled count compared to prior authorization 58:21
185–186 Budgeted positions Approximate current planning level referenced 58:29
$55,000 Grant revenue JAG funding per high school 58:57
2 Teachers One teacher at each high school shifted with JAG funds 59:06
10 Net positions Net district staffing reduction described after adjustments 1:12:49
$130,000 Program cost Rounded amount if AWARE not funded 1:13:03
$140,000 Program cost Rounded amount if STEM teachers not funded 1:13:25
2 Teachers Tenured STEM teachers who would still need placement if program cut 1:13:44
$3,000 Raise amount Prior-year noncertified raise referenced 1:15:55
6% Raise percentage Prior-year certified raise referenced 1:16:02
2% Revenue growth School-district property-tax increase since 2013, as stated 1:16:32
2013 Year Starting point for property-tax comparison 1:16:32
16.3% Poverty rate Hickman County poverty rate cited 1:17:50
17.5% Poverty rate Lewis County poverty rate cited 1:18:06
17.6% Poverty rate Perry County poverty rate cited 1:18:06
10.8% Poverty rate Maury County poverty rate cited 1:18:13
12 million Fund balance Public perception of available school reserves discussed 1:19:15
9 million Fund balance More realistic available figure implied in discussion 1:19:31
16th lowest Ranking County fiscal capacity ranking discussed 1:21:31
0.74 Fiscal-capacity measure Hickman County fiscal capacity figure cited 1:21:45
1.36 Fiscal-capacity measure Maury County fiscal capacity figure cited 1:22:08
5 Counties Counties chosen for original AWARE program 1:22:32
$1.7 million Carryover funds Innovative School Model carryover to be added to final 141 budget 1:38:30
2 years Time period Period covered by Innovative School Model carryover 1:38:37
$75,000 Grant Special education pre-K assistant grant 1:39:09
2 Positions Special education pre-K assistants funded by grant 1:39:09
4–4 Vote First budget motion failed 1:50:03
6.2% Effective raise example Veteran teacher example under step movement plus 4% schedule increase 1:43:22
5–2 Vote Second budget motion passed 1:58:52
14th Deadline date County timing for budget submission/meeting discussed 1:59:29
9th Possible meeting date Backup date if another budget meeting needed 1:59:55
13th Possible meeting date Backup date if another budget meeting needed 1:59:55
14th Possible meeting date Backup date if another budget meeting needed 1:59:55
5:30 Meeting time Approximate county meeting time discussed 2:01:12

External vendors, brands, and software

Name Type Context / topic Timestamp
Tennessee Department of Education Company State approval/guidance pathway for using ESSER funds on early salary costs 19:35
Medicaid Software Billing/reimbursement system for eligible nursing services 20:23
Tennessee Voices Company Outside partner supplying no-cost mental-health liaisons 24:29
Jobs for America’s Graduates Company Program expected to provide $55,000 per high school 58:49
AT&T Company Current phone rental and long-distance provider to be replaced 1:32:23
voice over Internet Protocol Software Planned replacement phone system for districtwide communications 1:32:31

Laws and policies

Citation / name Level Type Context / topic Timestamp
TISA State Law State funding formula driving allocation changes and CTE-related revenue discussion 18:00
ESSER Federal Law Federal relief funds used for salary support, capital items, phone system, and possible retention bonus 19:35
ATSI grant State Policy Targeted school-improvement funding referenced for East Hickman Middle staffing 52:20