Council OKs budget cut, keeps teacher raises

12:53 a.m. May 20, 2025

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

During its regular meeting Monday night, May 19, the Metro Council approved the first reading of the 2025-26 budget, ultimately agreeing on a $1.7412 tax levy – a 22-cent bump. During the nearly two-hour meeting, much of the discussion centered around the school system’s funding, particularly a 34% increase over last year’s school budget and rising costs tied to state-mandated teacher salary increases.

The council first agreed to set the tax rate levy at 1.7812 before moving into a lengthy and, at times, tense discussion over education spending.

District 2 Council member Robert Bracewell raised concerns about tuition rates for out-of-county students. “The county is paying about $3,800 per student, but we’re only charging $400 for out-of-county students,” Bracewell said, questioning whether state or federal funds made the difference.

Director of Schools Chad Moorehead responded that tuition for non-resident students offsets minor costs like printing and supplies. Still, the state contributes about $6,800 per student for students already accommodated within existing classroom capacities. Moorehead stressed that the school system only accepts out-of-county students when there is available room, preventing any additional financial strain on the district.

“Every one of those non-resident students is filling a seat we’ve already paid for,” Moorehead explained. “We would lose nearly half a million dollars in state funding if we turned them away.”

Moorehead explained that the district faces state-imposed salary increases starting next school year. The new law mandates a base salary of $47,000 for teachers in 2025-26 and $50,000 by 2026-27.

Moorehead estimated that about 15 teachers earn below the $50,000 threshold and clarified that the district calculates compensation using a step schedule tied to experience and degrees, not just base pay.

He added that he submitted two budget proposals – one covering the full increase now, and another that would phase it in – hoping to avoid another round of tense budget negotiations next year.

“I don’t enjoy this,” Moorehead said. “But the mandates are real, and we have to plan for them.”

$400K in TISA funding disappeared

The conversation turned to the new state funding model, the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) formula, which Moorehead said initially appeared to boost funding but later resulted in a surprise reduction of nearly $400,000.

“The state told us we qualified for a hold harmless provision,” Moorehead explained, “but then they shifted funding back to the outdated BEP model and increased our local funding responsibility by $399,000. It’s a technical swap, but it drained our fund balance.”

[Editor's Note: More about the hold harmless provision at the bottom of this article.]

He noted that future reductions under TISA would not be covered, making enrollment numbers, including non-resident students, critical to maintaining funding levels.

Councilman Darrel Richards questioned whether the proposed budget was more about maintaining operations beyond teacher pay increases. “If the teacher raises costs $450,000, that still leaves three-quarters of a million dollars in increases,” said Richards, who represents District 1.

Moorehead responded that the school system already used its fund balance to cover past raises and now works to sustain what it has achieved. He emphasized that the district’s academic performance has improved, citing 29 students scoring over 30 on the ACT in the last seven years.

“This budget isn’t about expanding,” Moorehead said. “It’s about preserving the momentum we’ve built. There’s no fluff – just a school bus, textbooks, and salary increases.”

District 5 Councilman Greg Guinn said he supported the school’s performance but was concerned about what he described as a “top-heavy” administrative structure. “We’re above average in several categories, including principals and assistant principals,” Guinn said.

Moorehead pushed back, requesting the source of that information and stating his belief that the staff structure was appropriate and aligned with the district’s needs.

Guinn said he’s received numerous calls and emails from residents urging him to vote against the tax increase.

“I’ve had many emails and calls from citizens that can’t afford to go up on this tax,” Guinn said. “We’re proud of our schools – I’ve got grandkids there, I went to school here, and I give more than I should to the football team and other programs. But I’ve got to look at the whole picture.”

Guinn emphasized that opposing the tax hike doesn’t signal a lack of support for education.

“This 15-vote has nothing to do with not supporting the school system. We just have to be responsible stewards for the entire county.

“We’re not saying the schools aren’t doing a great job,” Guinn concluded. “But we have to look at the budget from a business perspective too.”

Staffing is more than just the number

Some commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about whether the district was overstaffed, especially at the administrative level.

Moorehead acknowledged that while Moore County may have one more administrator than some surrounding districts, it has fewer in other areas. He cautioned against drawing quick conclusions from state data.

“You’ve got to look at what other staff are included,” he said. “In some schools, instead of a second administrator, they may have an extra counselor, nurse, or social worker.”

Bracewell asked to compare administrative staffing from 20 years ago versus now.

Peggy Sue Blackburn, a District 4 representative, voiced concern for the elderly in the community.

“If you figure one elderly person draws $1,000 a month, they’ve got to pay taxes, gas, electricity, and water just to live,” she said. “They’re a few dollars away from eating cat food, if you want to get down to it.”

Blackburn urged the commission and school system to tighten their belts.

“I think we need teachers, and I think you do an awesome job,” she said to Moorehead. “But we all have to try hard to make this work for the people who built this community.”

District 3 Council member Dexter Golden and others acknowledged that while enrollment has increased slightly over the past decade, it remains relatively flat in the short term. Moorehead said enrollment had once dipped to the low 700s but rebounded to around 840 students.

Golden emphasized the growing complexity of school operations, saying, “It takes a village. You start cutting one thing – when does it stop?”

Shane Taylor, a District 1 Council member, summarized the situation by noting that the commission faced a hard decision either way. Taylor said he had received many respectful calls from constituents, many of whom supported breaking up the increase over two years rather than all at once.

“Nobody at this table enjoys this,” Taylor said. “But we’re trying to make the best decision we can for the future of this county.”

'We'd be looking at cutting about 17 teachers'

Moorehead presented two budget scenarios to address the mandate: one that fully implements the new salary floor and another that phases in the increase more gradually, starting at $47,250.

“The difference for that $250 would have cost about $18,000,” Moorehead explained. “Even if the state had sent us extra money – and I’ve worked hard with Senator [Shane] Reeves and Representative [Pat] Marsh to get it – it would be one-time money. That doesn’t help us with recurring salary obligations.”

Richards expressed frustration that Moore County was one of only three districts not receiving additional state funding to meet the mandate: “If the state can mandate us to do this but won’t fund it, then something’s not making sense.”

Guinn asked the tricky question: What happens if the budget fails? Moorehead didn’t hesitate. “Our budget is 83% personnel. If this doesn’t pass, we’d be looking at cutting about 17 teachers.”

Current class sizes already hover near the state maximum, with elementary classes averaging 19 students in grades K-3, just below the state’s limit of 20. High school class sizes vary based on subject area certification requirements, making it challenging to consolidate without affecting the curriculum.

Moorehead also noted that about half of Moore County students ride the bus daily, with afternoon routes often more crowded than morning ones. “We’ve had to combine several routes. Some buses have around 50 students in the afternoon,” he said. “The bus capacity numbers aren’t what they used to be. They’re calculated with 18-inch seats, and that’s just not realistic anymore.”

The meeting revealed a desire among board members to support teachers and students, but also a concern for elderly residents and those on fixed incomes who may struggle to absorb a property tax increase. The idea of spreading the increase over two years to soften the blow was discussed. Still, officials noted the difference would amount to about two cents on the property tax rate, not a significant reduction.

“We want to enhance what we already have,” Moorehead said, emphasizing the district’s commitment to high standards and responsible growth. “But these decisions aren’t easy.”

$200K for school bus and textbooks cut

The board took an initial vote, and the budget failed to pass, 9-6.

Arvis Bobo, Gerald Burnett, Amy Cashion, Marty Cashion, Bradley Dye, Dexter Golden, Houston Lindsey, John Taylor, and Shane Taylor voted “yes.”

Peggy Sue Blackburn, Robert Bracewell, Douglas Carson, Greg Guinn, Jimmy Hammond, and Darrel Richards voted “no.”

District 4 Councilman Bradley Dye asked the “no” voters, “What’s your proposal?”

Bracewell responded, “Find a way,” prompting laughter from many of the teachers in attendance.

He continued: “That proposed salary increase … the annualized equivalent to $62,500, which is well over 50% of the average median income in this county.

“This is what happens in a bureaucracy, when all of your employees are funded by the government – they’re all getting paid more, right? They’re working 200 days a year. The average person works 250 days a year. I understand that’s their field [teaching]; that’s what they chose to do.

“But when you annualize that, way more than the average citizen pays … and all we do is squeeze the citizens for more money, it’s a 3% raise seemingly every year that the people that are paying them don’t get. It’s unfortunate. No one’s saying that they’re doing a bad job or that they don’t deserve more money, but it comes at the expense of everyone else.”

Mayor Sloan Stewart said the county could purchase the bus through another means, but did not know if the textbooks could be included. “You could do the bus out of debt service on a five-year amortization schedule. You’re looking at a $40,000 a year payment, and it wouldn’t affect the debt service.”

Ultimately, Dye suggested the state-mandated $50,000 salaries but cut the school bus and textbooks from the proposed budget. Dropping the school bus and textbooks sliced $200,000 from the budget and reduced the tax rate from $1.7812 to $1.7412.

Golden seconded the motion, and the board voted 10-5 to approve the first reading with a $1.7412 tax levy.

Amy Cashion, Shane Taylor, Douglas Carson, John Taylor, Marty Cashion, Dexter Golden, Houston Lindsey, Arvis Bobo, Bradley Dye, and Gerald Burnett voted “yes.”

Robert Bracewell, Darrel Richards, Jimmy Hammond, Peggy Sue Blackburn, and Greg Guinn voted “no.”

The second reading of the 2025-26 budget will be on Monday, June 16. At 6 p.m., the council will hear public comments, and the regularly scheduled monthly meeting will follow at 6:30 p.m.

Understanding TISA’s Hold Harmless Provisions

The Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) hold harmless measures protect school districts from sharp funding drops during the transition from the old BEP model. These provisions offer financial stability as districts adjust to the new formula.

• 5% Safety Net: If a district’s TISA funding falls more than 5% from the previous year, the state covers the shortfall to limit the loss.

• BEP Transition Funding: Districts receiving less under TISA than they did with BEP get phased support: 100% of the gap in year one, then 75%, 50%, and 25% over the next three years.

• Economically Disadvantaged Adjustment: If delayed SNAP/TANF certification lowers a district’s ED student count, they can use the higher number from either 2022–23 or 2023–24 to avoid losing funds.

• Why It Matters: These hold harmless rules give districts time to adapt and plan, preventing budget shocks during the shift to TISA.