Hickman County TN

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Budget, Finance & Human Resources · Meeting · May 7, 2026

Thu, May 7, 2026

Oversees the annual budget process, departmental funding requests, and personnel policies including hiring, compensation, and benefits.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Join the Substack

Outline

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

The committee’s main substantive work was on funding requests from the school system, the 32nd Judicial District Child Advocacy Center, and Solid Waste. The clearest action was approval of $30,000 for the Child Advocacy Center after a presentation linking county support to therapy, victim services, staffing stability, and prosecutions. The school budget drew the longest discussion: school officials asked for an 8-cent property-tax increase tied mainly to the state-mandated teacher minimum salary increase to $50,000, plus separate help on roughly $400,000 in capital maintenance. Committee members pushed back on revenue assumptions, especially the school budget’s conservative local-option sales-tax line, and ultimately rejected the proposal as presented and sent it back with guidance built around a smaller property-tax increase and a higher sales-tax estimate.

Solid Waste did not receive final action, but members previewed coming resolutions to raise residential and tipping fees and add a commercial/industrial charge, with justification centered on higher landfill costs, lost Perry County business, aging equipment, engineering for a permit process expected to take years, and state planning requirements. Other notable threads included collections performance on delinquent solid-waste accounts, a budget-neutral $100,000 broadband grant addition, reopening the general fund/nonprofit lines to incorporate late changes, and schedule pressure requiring the school budget to return quickly.

Call to Order / Approval of Agenda 9:35

  • 10:08 Agenda approved on motion by Claude Callicott, second by Ron Mayberry, by voice vote.
  • 10:06 Roll call recorded 9 present, 5 absent, establishing a quorum.

Public Comments 10:30

  • 10:44 A speaker urged closer scrutiny of the school budget rather than a broad tax increase.
    • 11:20 Argued the system appears heavy on assistants and said he had not gotten clear answers on why so many are needed.
    • 12:06 Said health-services spending had “exploded,” questioned whether COVID-era nursing staffing remained necessary, and suggested this was a major cost driver.
    • 12:23 Questioned growth in special-education spending, asking whether needs had risen or whether classification incentives were expanding costs.
    • 12:53 Criticized technology spending, especially Chromebooks, as costly with doubtful educational payoff.
    • 13:11 Said recent years averaged about $700,000 annually in school capital expenditures, but none appeared in the current school budget despite known needs; suggested this avoided increasing maintenance of effort.
    • 13:33 Opposed increasing maintenance of effort while student population is falling.
    • 13:51 Warned against comparisons to other Tennessee counties based only on local funding percentages, arguing some peer counties have much stronger sales-tax and business/industrial revenue bases.
    • 14:37 Concluded the school request was “small” relative to the whole budget but warned the district would keep returning unless it fixed personnel costs and freed money for capital needs.

New Business / Agenda Items

32nd Judicial District Child Advocacy Center 15:06

  • 15:41 The district attorney and new executive director described the center as a replacement built after the Davis House Child Advocacy Center left, with county support helping avoid any interruption in services for abuse victims in Hickman, Lewis, and Perry counties.
  • 17:44 They stressed every judicial district needs a child advocacy center and that state/DCS support alone is insufficient; the model depends on a mix of state funds, county support, and private donations.
  • 18:09 The district attorney explained why forensic interviews matter:
    • 18:18 Only qualified CAC staff can conduct these interviews.
    • 19:07 Properly recorded interviews can serve as the child’s testimony at trial, reducing retraumatization.
    • 20:17 He gave a prosecution example in which a defendant accepted 40 years in prison at age 62, crediting a detailed 2.5-hour forensic interview with establishing probable cause for a search warrant and recovering corroborating evidence.
  • 23:18 The executive director said last year the center requested $30,000 to help fund the forensic interviewer and executive director positions.
  • 23:35 She said those positions, plus a family advocate role, had since been stabilized, and that grant support for the family advocate was already lined up for another year after June 30.
  • 23:54 This year’s request was again $30,000, but for a different purpose:
    • 24:02 To reintroduce therapy services that left the district when Davis House departed.
    • 24:18 Goal to have therapy operating again by the end of the year.
    • 24:26 Current funding exists to start the service; county/community money was requested to stabilize it long-term.
    • 24:38 If additional grant funding later covers therapy, local money would instead support a child protective investigative team coordinator focused on coordination, prevention, and outreach.
  • 25:50 The director said the new staffing would expand services, reduce overload on the forensic interviewer, and help move the center toward national accreditation, which in turn opens more funding pathways.
  • 26:29 She said the center could not apply for the opioid abatement grant this cycle because it had not yet been open for 24 consecutive months, but planned to pursue that next year.
  • 27:04 She also cited United Way of Hickman County, VOCA, and DCS as ongoing or hoped-for supports.
  • 27:32 Statistical data on cases and referrals since opening on January 1, 2025 was included in member packets; she said this year’s volume had grown over last year’s.

Motion and vote

  • 28:57 Motion by Matthew Barnhill, second by Devin Pickard, to grant $30,000 to the 32nd Judicial District Child Advocacy Center.
  • 29:21 A committee member asked what Lewis and Perry counties had contributed.
    • 29:30 Response: Lewis County had been asked for $15,000, but due to sheriff’s budget issues gave $10,000 last year.
    • 29:46 Perry County later gave $15,000.
    • 30:02 This year’s Lewis County request had again been written for $15,000.
  • 30:23 Finance staff noted the county’s nonprofit line had already been approved earlier, so the amount would need to be added back into the relevant fund line later.
  • 31:27 Members clarified that the existing nonprofit amount of $23,000 would become $53,000 with this addition.
  • 32:17 Roll-call vote approved the request 12–0.

School Budget — General Purpose School Fund 141 33:10

  • 33:28 Incoming Director of Schools Marcy Tidwell presented the budget and framed it around both district progress and current financial pressure.

Academic and operational context

  • 34:11 She highlighted district gains:
    • 34:36 Strongest recent growth in math and social studies.
    • 34:44 Several schools moved from D ratings to B ratings.
    • 35:01 Multiple schools reached Level 5 TVAAS growth.
    • 35:12 Hickman County High School became a reward school for the first time in its history.
    • 35:20 Students can graduate with about one full year of college credit through dual enrollment at free or very low cost.
    • 35:42 District offers about 15 CTE programs, described as unusually strong for a high school system.
    • 36:08 ACT scores have improved over the last 4 years.
    • 36:17 Attendance rates were higher in nearly every school than at the same point the prior year.
    • 36:24 Teacher retention was described as improved despite competition from higher-paying neighboring counties.

Financial pressures and enrollment

  • 37:13 Officials said ESSER funding is gone, leaving the district to absorb costs for positions, facility upgrades, technology, and other items previously supported by federal relief money.
  • 37:36 They acknowledged enrollment is down.
  • 37:49 Tidwell said about 800 Hickman County students choose private or homeschool options.
  • 38:14 She said statewide averages are about 13% homeschooled and 10% private-school enrollment.
  • 38:28 She said Hickman County is also at about 23% outside the public system, arguing this is not uniquely local.
  • 38:54 She said school choice and vouchers make the trend harder, but the district wants to make itself more attractive and recapture some of those students.

District response plan

  • 39:27 The district said it must stabilize spending, increase revenue where possible, and operate more efficiently.
  • 39:39 A major enrollment/revenue strategy is to market the county’s existing virtual school option more aggressively.
    • 39:55 Current approval limits the Hickman County Virtual Academy to county residents only.
    • 40:19 Unlike some statewide virtual operators, the district is not yet seeking broader enrollment outside the county.
    • 40:27 Officials instead want local families to know a free virtual option already exists.
  • 40:49 Other possible revenue ideas under review:
    • 40:57 Advertising on school buses; officials said there are about 40 buses and other systems generate meaningful recurring revenue this way.
    • 41:24 Leasing school property for communications towers to improve county cell coverage while generating ongoing revenue at no direct cost to the district.
  • 41:45 Tidwell said no contracts had yet been signed on those ideas.
  • 41:53 The district also plans to keep pursuing grants to support positions and offset costs.
  • 42:02 She said non-essential spending must be reduced.
  • 42:11 She said the district also has to examine noncritical positions and cannot assume attrition alone will solve staffing costs.
  • 42:39 She set an internal goal of spending only 90% of the proposed budget if possible, effectively trying to save 10% through tighter control.

Funding request

  • 43:04 The district asked for an 8-cent property-tax increase.
  • 43:20 Tidwell said the request was specifically tied to an unfunded state mandate requiring teacher minimum pay changes.
  • 43:25 She said the minimum teacher salary must rise to $50,000 next school year, with additional required step increases at 1–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11+ years.
  • 44:18 Officials said the state mandate leaves the district no discretion on whether to comply.
  • 44:25 Estimated cost of compliance was about $700,000 or slightly more, which they said equates to a little over 8 cents.
  • 44:39 In addition to the tax request, the district separately asked for help with larger maintenance projects totaling a little over $400,000.
  • 45:15 Tidwell emphasized that capital support outside the operating budget would not raise maintenance of effort and could therefore help without permanently locking in higher recurring obligations.

Enrollment and TISA discussion

  • 46:38 Committee questions focused first on enrollment and state funding assumptions.
  • 46:50 Current enrollment was given as 2,824 students.
  • 47:25 Prior-year enrollment used for TISA purposes was given as 2,893.
  • 47:41 Officials said 2027 could show a slight enrollment uptick because a larger kindergarten cohort may replace a smaller graduating class.

Local-option sales-tax assumption dispute

  • 48:00 Committee members challenged the school budget’s local-option sales-tax estimate of $2.9 million.
  • 48:21 School finance staff said that figure was left as in last year’s budget because increasing the budgeted number would raise maintenance of effort even though actual collections flow automatically at 50% of what the county receives.
  • 49:49 Officials said, internally, they expect actual sales-tax revenue to exceed the budgeted figure and are already counting on that in their reasonable fund-balance projection, but do not want to bake it into the formal budget and permanently ratchet up maintenance of effort.
  • 50:24 Committee members noted actual 2024–25 local-option sales-tax revenue came in at $3.2 million and has trended upward each year.
  • 50:49 A member suggested next year could be $3.4 million or $3.5 million; school finance staff replied they actually expect it to be higher than that.
  • 51:57 One commissioner said he preferred the budget line to reflect a more realistic trend, even while understanding the maintenance-of-effort concern.
  • 52:13 A member estimated that if the number were raised to around $3.6 million, it would offset roughly 7 cents numerically, but school staff replied that doing so would not replace the need for actual new recurring funding and would simply hardwire a larger maintenance-of-effort base.

Questions on tuition, virtual program, and appeal to homeschool/private-school families

  • 55:16 Members asked about homeschool/private-school demographics.
    • 55:52 Officials said students outside the system skew more heavily toward K–8.
    • 56:18 They said the current virtual program serves only grades 6–12, and the district is considering opening it to K–12.
  • 56:28 Members asked what incentives could bring students back.
    • 56:52 Tidwell said one issue for faith-based homeschool families is concern about curriculum and “indoctrination,” so the district is preparing a Q&A to address those questions directly.
    • 57:16 She argued the biggest incentive is that the virtual option is free while private/home-based alternatives often require monthly payment for limited services.
  • 58:00 Members asked whether out-of-county students are charged.
    • 58:07 Officials said a prior $1,000 charge had been removed from board policy.
    • 58:20 They said the reasoning was that state funding associated with additional students makes waiving the charge potentially more advantageous.

Capital maintenance discussion

  • 1:00:17 Members asked how the separate capital request should be funded.
  • 1:00:39 District officials confirmed the maintenance list was outside the regular budget and represented a narrowed list of urgent projects.
  • 1:01:03 They said an original list had been around $700,000-plus, but was cut back to the most pressing needs.
  • 1:01:21 Finance staff said possible funding routes included a capital outlay note or amendments to adequate facilities funding; they also noted the county is already using a little over $400,000 in the current budget.
  • 1:01:46 A member questioned tennis-court resurfacing costs, saying he had heard $80,000 just for the high school the previous year.
  • 1:02:14 Officials clarified the current estimate covered courts at two schools, East Hickman High School and Hickman County High School.
  • 1:02:43 Staff said major crack-filling and related work at the high school dated back to before one official took the role 10 years earlier.

Salary-mandate detail

  • 1:03:11 One commissioner calculated the total request at $720,000, or about 11.69% of current maintenance of effort.
  • 1:03:35 He noted the current zero-year teacher salary appeared to be $47,924, meaning a rise to $50,000 is roughly a 4% increase at entry level, and asked whether the request included added positions.
  • 1:03:56 District officials said no additional positions were being planned; they do include a small cushion in case vacancies arise but do not expect to fill extra slots.
  • 1:05:06 Officials explained they had built the schedule around the state minimums first and then applied smaller increases beyond the mandated thresholds where possible to control costs while still avoiding a schedule that over-rewards only brand-new teachers.
  • 1:06:30 Specific state minimums discussed:
    • $50,000 for year 0
    • $50,645 for years 1–5
    • $53,370 for years 6–10
    • $56,900 beginning in year 11
  • 1:07:08 School finance staff cautioned the state had not yet released all advanced-degree brackets and the district was projecting from prior state patterns; final figures were expected by the second week of June.

Motion and vote

  • 1:08:34 Motion by Matthew Barnhill, second by Dusty Jordan, to reject the school budget as presented and send it back with guidance to raise the local-option sales-tax estimate to $3.3 million.
  • 1:09:50 Finance staff said that change would reduce the overall increase to about $325,000.
  • 1:10:34 Updated figures were compared, including an adjusted handout dropping from about $841,191 to $839,169.
  • 1:10:57 Finance staff said that with no increase, the school tax revenue would be about $2,838,975 at a rate of 33.81 cents; with the full 8-cent increase, it would be about $3,510,723.
  • 1:11:41 Members said the sales-tax adjustment would offset the request by almost 4 pennies.
  • 1:12:17 Maintenance-of-effort impact under that scenario was stated as $710,516.
  • 1:13:01 Discussion broadened to whether school capital needs should be bundled into a larger wheel-tax or debt-financing strategy rather than handled piecemeal each year.
    • 1:13:44 Finance staff said wheel tax is possible but generally used for much larger projects; for less than $1 million, a capital outlay loan would likely be easier.
    • 1:14:18 Staff said debt is slowly decreasing and the FEMA loan may come in lower than expected and be paid off with reimbursement.
    • 1:14:40 A member recalled the bus-garage remodel, around $400,000–$450,000, being handled through a capital outlay note without affecting maintenance of effort.
    • 1:16:19 Another member said one wheel tax is rolling off in May 2029; after that, he believed only the perpetual $15 portion would remain, with other collections now going to debt.
    • 1:15:58 The county clerk estimated around 24,000 registered vehicles.
  • 1:17:01 Chair restated the motion as rejecting the budget and sending it back with guidance to use $3.3 million local-option sales tax and reduce the property-tax request to 4 pennies.
  • 1:18:24 The 4-penny scenario was said to equal about $335,874.
  • 1:18:46 The chair clarified a yes vote meant rejecting the original proposal and returning it to the school board with that guidance.
  • 1:19:12 Roll-call vote approved the rejection/guidance motion 12–0.
  • 1:22:47 Because of upcoming approvals and scheduling, the committee discussed when the school budget could return.
    • 1:23:07 Members indicated final approval likely could not happen until June.
    • 1:23:38 The school budget was invited back for the next Monday meeting, around 5:10 or 5:30, and the school representative agreed.

School Cafeteria Fund 143 1:19:55

  • 1:20:02 School officials said the district remains on the free-lunch program for next year.
  • 1:20:11 Expenditures are lower partly because prior-year summer expenditures do not need to be carried forward.
  • 1:20:27 Some salary lines are lower for that reason.
  • 1:20:33 Officials reported increased recent participation in breakfast and lunch programs.
  • 1:20:40 Revenue estimates are based on current reimbursement levels and recent participation gains.
  • 1:21:34 They noted reimbursement rates for next year are unknown; no assumed increase was built into the budget.
  • 1:21:51 They also noted a slight staffing reduction of about one position.

Motion and vote

  • 1:22:08 Motion by Clay Chessor, second by Danny Clark, to approve Fund 143 as presented.
  • 1:22:21 Approved by roll call 12–0.

Solid Waste 207 1:24:11 / 1:33:23

  • 1:24:20 The committee recessed for about five minutes before taking up Solid Waste.
  • 1:33:23 Solid Waste Director Jordan Sachs said the Solid Waste Board had formally recommended the budget previously presented and that two supporting resolutions now had sponsors and co-sponsors and were under review by County Attorney Dan Mecklenborg.
  • 1:34:06 He summarized the main reasons more revenue is needed:
    • 1:34:13 The Camden landfill is charging more per ton.
    • 1:34:23 Hickman County expects to lose roughly one-third of its paid Perry County business.
    • 1:34:34 Equipment is aging.
    • 1:34:41 Engineering money is needed to begin a permit process that may take about 6 years.
    • 1:34:57 The state also requires a new 10-year solid-waste plan, due sometime in fiscal year 2028.

Collections and delinquent accounts

  • 1:35:20 Members asked whether tighter collections efforts were actually improving payment compliance.
  • 1:35:32 Sachs said yes:
    • 1:35:40 About 90.5% of current-year accounts have either paid or claimed exemption.
    • 1:35:55 The department has collected over $60,000 in old debt in about the last 2 months.
  • 1:36:05 He said the county is going to court on June 30 regarding some unpaid accounts.
  • 1:36:13 It was noted that on Monday night the county had approved a budget amendment to allow use of the court system to pursue delinquent payers.
  • 1:36:25 A committee member said this was important because raising the fee without improving collections would only burden those already paying.
  • 1:36:55 Another member and staff said the improvement has been real; some old debts still may not be collectible unless property transfers occur and liens can be resolved.
  • 1:37:31 Finance staff pointed out even property taxes are never collected at 100%, with county budgeting often assuming around 93%, underscoring that some nonpayment is inevitable.

Forthcoming fee resolutions

  • 1:38:05 No final action was taken on the Solid Waste budget because associated resolutions first need county commission action later in May.
  • 1:38:18 Officials said there are two resolutions:
    • one covering fee increases reflected in the budget;
    • another establishing a commercial/industrial charge to offset added waste-management costs.
  • 1:39:16 The proposed changes were summarized as:
    • Residential annual fee from $90 to $110
    • Tipping fee from $60 to $100
    • New commercial/industrial annual charge of $120
    • Commercial/industrial tipping fee likewise from $60 to $100
  • 1:40:16 Committee consensus was to bring the Solid Waste budget back after county commission acts on those resolutions.
  • 1:40:58 Members remarked that past operational efficiencies delayed the need for this increase, but that rising external disposal costs and the likely loss of Perry County revenue now leave little room for further internal savings.

Unfinished Business / Budget Revisions 1:42:52

Reopening General Fund 101 and nonprofit lines 1:43:01

  • 1:43:01 Finance staff asked to reopen Fund 101 and the nonprofit line so late adjustments could be entered.
  • 1:43:36 Requested changes included:
    • adding the $30,000 for the 32nd Judicial District Child Advocacy Center to nonprofits;
    • adjusting the Fund 101 tax rate figures;
    • adding a budget-neutral broadband grant of $100,000 on both revenue and expenditure sides because it had been omitted.
  • 1:44:01 Motion by Ron Mayberry, second by Claude Callicott, to reopen the relevant budget lines; approved by voice vote.

Nonprofit adjustment for Child Advocacy Center 1:44:19

  • 1:44:19 Motion by Claude Callicott, second by Ron Mayberry, to add $30,000 to nonprofits for the 32nd Judicial District Child Advocacy Center.
  • 1:44:47 Approved by roll call 12–0.

Reapproval of Fund 101 with adjustments 1:45:18

  • 1:45:21 Finance staff said no separate motion on the tax rate was needed beyond reopening the fund and allowing the numerical adjustments.
  • 1:45:50 Members clarified the omitted broadband grant was budget-neutral and would “wash” between revenues and expenditures.
  • 1:46:40 After the adjustments, finance staff said projected ending fund balance on June 30, 2027 would be just shy of $4 million.
  • 1:46:52 Motion by Claude Callicott, second by Ron Mayberry, to approve Fund 101 with the adjustments.
  • 1:46:59 Approved by roll call; the transcript indicates the motion carried unanimously.

Announcements / Scheduling 1:42:34

  • 1:42:34 Members said they would vote on the Solid Waste resolutions at the county commission meeting on the fourth Monday in May.
  • 1:42:41 Another budget meeting was scheduled for the following Monday, with attendance encouraged.
  • 1:47:28 Finance staff said the budget schedule would need to be revised again because of the night’s changes.

Adjournment 1:47:49

  • 1:47:49 Motion to adjourn by Devin Pickard, second by Dusty Jordan; approved by voice vote.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
9 present, 5 absent Attendance Roll call / quorum 10:06
$700,000 Expense estimate Public comment estimate of average annual school capital expenditures 13:11
$30,000 Funding request Child Advocacy Center request last year and again this year 23:18
June 30 Date Current grant support point for family advocate funding 23:41
24 consecutive months Eligibility threshold Why CAC could not apply for opioid abatement grant this cycle 26:35
January 1, 2025 Date CAC opening date used for statistical reporting 27:32
$15,000 Funding request Lewis County request amount 29:30
$10,000 Contribution Lewis County actual contribution last year 29:38
$15,000 Contribution Perry County contribution last year 29:46
$23,000 Budget line Existing nonprofit amount before CAC addition 30:58
$53,000 Budget line Nonprofit total after adding CAC request 31:27
12–0 Vote Approval of CAC funding 32:41
D to B Rating change School improvement cited in district overview 34:44
Level 5 Performance level TVAAS growth level achieved by multiple schools 35:01
1 year Academic measure College credit students can earn through dual enrollment 35:20
15 Program count CTE programs offered 35:42
4 years Time period Period over which ACT scores were said to improve 36:08
800 Student count Hickman County students choosing homeschool/private school 37:49
13% Percentage Statewide homeschool share cited 38:14
10% Percentage Statewide private-school share cited 38:21
23% Percentage Hickman County share outside public schools, per district 38:28
40 Vehicle count Approximate school buses that could carry ads 41:03
90% Internal target Share of proposed school budget leadership hopes to spend 42:39
10% Savings target Internal goal to save from proposed school budget 42:48
8 cents Tax request School property-tax increase request 43:04
$50,000 Salary mandate New minimum teacher salary 43:25
1–5 years; 6–10 years; 11+ years Salary brackets Mandated teacher pay step ranges discussed 43:34
$700,000 Cost estimate Approximate cost of teacher-salary mandate compliance 44:25
$400,000+ Capital request Separate school maintenance-project request 45:04
2,824 Enrollment Current student count 46:50
2,893 Enrollment Prior-year TISA-related enrollment base 47:25
$2.9 million Revenue assumption School local-option sales-tax budget line 48:00
50% Revenue share School share of county local-option sales tax 49:17
$3.2 million Actual revenue 2024–25 local-option sales-tax actual cited by committee 50:24
$3.4 million / $3.5 million Revenue estimate Committee member’s projection for future sales-tax trend 50:49
$3.6 million Revenue estimate Figure used in discussion of how much sales tax could offset tax request 52:13
K–8 Grade span Grades most represented in homeschool/private-school trend 55:52
6–12 Grade span Current virtual academy range 56:18
K–12 Grade span Possible future expansion of virtual academy 56:18
$1,000 Tuition/fee Prior out-of-county student charge that had been removed 58:47
$700,000+ Project estimate Original, larger school capital list before it was narrowed 1:01:03
$80,000 Project estimate Tennis-court resurfacing amount mentioned for high school 1:01:46
2 schools Facility count Tennis-court request covered East Hickman and Hickman County high schools 1:02:14
10 years Time period Since one official entered the position, used to date prior court work 1:02:43
$720,000 Cost estimate Committee member’s calculation of school request 1:03:11
11.69% Percentage Request as share of current maintenance of effort, per member’s calculation 1:03:19
$47,924 Salary Current zero-year teacher pay cited from salary schedule 1:04:30
4% Percentage Approximate raise needed to move zero-year pay to mandated minimum 1:04:37
16 years Time period Approximate portion of salary schedule seeing around 4% treatment, per explanation 1:05:24
$50,000 Salary mandate Year-0 minimum salary 1:06:30
$50,645 Salary mandate Years 1–5 minimum salary 1:06:41
$53,370 Salary mandate Years 6–10 minimum salary 1:06:41
$56,900 Salary mandate Year-11-and-up minimum salary 1:06:41
$3.3 million Revenue assumption Suggested local-option sales-tax figure in motion 1:08:34
$325,000 Revenue effect Overall increase after adjusting sales-tax figure 1:09:50
$841,191 Budget figure Earlier handout amount referenced during school budget recalculation 1:10:34
$839,169 Budget figure Adjusted handout amount referenced during recalculation 1:10:41
33.81 cents Tax rate School rate before any increase, per finance explanation 1:10:57
$2,838,975 Revenue School tax revenue before increase 1:10:57
$3,510,723 Revenue School tax revenue with full 8-cent increase 1:10:57
4 pennies Tax guidance Approximate reduced property-tax increase discussed 1:11:41
$710,516 Maintenance of effort MOE figure cited under revised scenario 1:12:17
5 years / 10 years Planning horizon Question about longer-range school capital planning 1:13:26
Less than $1 million Financing threshold Staff view that capital outlay loan is easier below this amount 1:13:58
$400,000–$450,000 Project cost Bus-garage remodel handled through capital outlay note 1:14:47
24,000 Vehicle count Approximate registered vehicles in county 1:15:58
May 2029 Date Wheel tax rollover mentioned 1:16:19
$15 Tax amount Perpetual wheel-tax portion expected to remain 1:16:32
$335,874 Revenue effect Value of 4-penny school-property-tax scenario 1:18:24
12–0 Vote Rejection of school budget as presented, with guidance 1:19:28
1 position Staffing change Approximate cafeteria staffing reduction 1:21:51
12–0 Vote Approval of cafeteria fund 143 1:22:37
5:10 / 5:30 Time Possible return times for next school budget meeting 1:23:53
5 minutes Recess length Break before Solid Waste discussion 1:24:20
2 resolutions Legislative count Solid Waste fee resolutions under review 1:33:34
6 years Time period Estimated permit timeline for solid-waste engineering/permitting 1:34:41
10-year Planning period Required new solid-waste plan 1:34:57
FY 2028 Fiscal year Due period for solid-waste plan 1:35:06
90.5% Collection rate Current-year solid-waste accounts paid or exempted 1:35:40
$60,000 Collections Old solid-waste debt collected in roughly two months 1:35:55
2 months Time period Span for recent solid-waste debt collections 1:35:55
June 30 Court date Solid-waste delinquent account enforcement date 1:36:05
93% Collection assumption Approximate property-tax budgeting collection rate cited for comparison 1:37:31
$90 to $110 Fee increase Proposed residential solid-waste annual fee change 1:39:16
$60 to $100 Fee increase Proposed tipping-fee increase 1:39:16
$120 New fee Proposed commercial/industrial annual charge 1:39:32
$60 to $100 Fee increase Proposed commercial/industrial tipping-fee change 1:39:59
$100,000 Grant Budget-neutral broadband grant added to Fund 101 1:43:46
June 30, 2027 Date Projected ending-fund-balance date for Fund 101 1:46:40
Just shy of $4 million Fund balance Projected Fund 101 ending balance after adjustments 1:46:40
12–0 Vote Reapproval of nonprofit addition for CAC 1:45:10