By Miles Layton

GATESVILLE — Facing a $500,000 reduction in state funding and the added complexity of closing Buckland Elementary to consolidate elementary schools, the Gates County Board of Education and the Gates County Board of Commissioners met Tuesday in a joint session aimed at bridging a gap between what the school system says it needs and what county government says it can provide.

The hour-and-a-half meeting marked the latest in a series of conversations between the boards as the county navigates one of the most difficult budget years in recent memory. By the end of the night, both boards voted unanimously to extend the school system’s budget submission deadline from May 15 to June 1, giving the Board of Education more time to sharpen its figures and provide documentation to justify any spending beyond the county’s $2.9 million local operational funding target.

“We just wanted to come together, first, kind of recap on where we’re at,” Truman said in opening the meeting. “We’ve both had meetings since we met last. This gives us an opportunity to discuss things going forward, see where you all are at with any changes that might have occurred since we last met.”

Board of Education Chair Leslie Byrum pledged transparency from the outset. “We’re here to answer any unknown questions that you would like to have answers for,” Byrum said. “We will try to do our best to give you an answer. If we do not know, we will ask someone from the central office.”

Subscribe — it’s free!

Much of the evening’s early discussion centered on an explanation, delivered by board member Danny Hale, of the complicated funding mechanics that have put the school system in a difficult position. The state projects Gates County Schools will lose 50 students in the coming year, dropping enrollment from 1,373 to 1,323. Because state funding is tied to enrollment, that single projection translates directly into a loss.

“The loss of 50 students is a reduction of state funding of $500,000 right off the start,” Hale said. “For every five students you lose, you lose two and a half teachers’ pay right off the start.”

Hale stressed that the relationship between student counts and staffing is not as clean as it sounds. In a district where three schools each run multiple classrooms per grade, losing four students spread across 13 grades might only remove one student from each class — yet the state still cuts teacher allocations accordingly. “They cut your salary with two and a half teachers, but at the same time, that may be four students per grade,” he said. “The net effect is four teachers go down one student. But they cut you a teacher.”

The school system had presented the commission with a local funding request of $3.2 million — a figure that accounts for the $500,000 state reduction and the costs of merging two elementary schools into one. Hale told the commission that the $800,000 in anticipated savings from the school closure that had been cited in earlier discussions was partly misleading.

“There’s only $300,000 left because I’ve already taken the first half-million hit just from state funding,” he said.

Commissioner Dave Forsythe pressed the board on the school system’s ability to produce a reliable budget before a planned reduction-in-force process is complete. 

“Until we sort of have that number, how is it we’re able to even really come up with a budget?” Forsythe asked. “My real concern is, are we just going to take people over and create new jobs?”

Hale pushed back, saying the board had deliberately avoided creating positions. “We’re not trying to say, ‘Well, this goes from here, we’re just going to create something over here,’” he said. “We’re going in with that purpose of saying we’re not creating a new position anywhere.”

Board member Terri Riddick noted the one limited exception: secretarial positions at the two remaining elementary schools, where bookkeepers had been absorbing front-desk responsibilities after secretaries were eliminated. “The only creation is at the two elementary schools having a secretary at the front desk,” Riddick said. “They used to have a secretary and a bookkeeper. They did away with secretaries. The bookkeeper was answering the phone, doing everything.”

The conversation grew more detailed when Forsythe asked for a clearer breakdown of the district’s supplements and stipends — additional pay categories layered on top of base state salaries. A thick printout the commission had received prompted a back-and-forth about how difficult the document was to interpret.

“I don’t have the decoder ring to understand this,” Forsythe said. He asked that future documentation break out county dollars specifically — distinguishing what goes to classroom teachers, school administrators, and central office staff, and separating mandatory supplements from discretionary ones.

Truman added precision to the request. “Break it down only to county dollars,” she said. “What goes to central office? What goes to teachers? What goes to school administration as stipends and supplements?”

Commissioner Nathan Berryman stepped in to frame where the commission stood overall. His board had sent the school system a letter indicating it was prepared to offer flat operational funding compared to last year — approximately $2.9 million — plus an additional $100,000 for capital improvements. The commission was also willing to defer certain HVAC replacement costs to the following budget cycle and take over utility and maintenance expenses for the building being closed, to help reduce the school system’s cost burden.

“We are sitting at a flat amount of money from last year,” Berryman said. “We would like to put some guardrails in there — not finite ones, tight ones. Just this is how much supplement can be spent on teachers, this is how much supplement can be spent on administrative staff. We’re looking for you all to help us with that and tell us what you want there.”

Hale responded by explaining what the constraint would mean in practice. “If you give us 2.9, everything goes back in the pot again from our end,” he said. “We cannot operate thinking we got 3.2 when you say we get 3. We may have to look for programs we need to cut. We may have to look for other additional savings — we have to.”

Board member JoJo Legg expressed concern about the pace of it all. “I just feel like we’re in such a tight time crunch that we are feeling rushed now, and the pressure — my fear is that we’re going to be so rushed that we’re going to make a drastic mistake,” Legg said. “We cannot cut these teacher positions. Teachers have already been cut, and the numbers are already at the state level. So we can’t cut that, and we’re already going to start off struggling with the number of kids in the classroom.”

Forsythe acknowledged the concern but pushed for accountability. “Even if we approve it at 2.9, and we end up saying this budget year is set at 2.9 — if within 30 days you come up with your closure report or anything else, we should be willing to consider adjusting at that point with real data,” he said. “I want to be clear. I think that’s the way we should go forward.”

Hale agreed the approach was workable. “We could get to things that we would say and bring to your attention,” he said. “Like the curricular budget — there’s nothing in there to cut. We would say, ‘There’s nothing in there to cut. You cannot get anything out of there.’ But we can get something out of here.”

Truman then floated the idea of extending the school system’s deadline. Citing the statutory language that allows a board of commissioners to set a later date for budget submission, she asked whether her board would be willing to give the school board more time given that two significant meetings were already on the calendar for the following week.

“We pushed for an early budget; this is a unique year,” Truman said. “I really think that they’re trying, we’re trying. If we can give a little bit of an extension, I think it would be warranted.”

The extension was set for June 1, with the school system directed to work toward the $2.9 million target and return with detailed justification for any expenditures that could not be reduced to meet it.

With the motion passed unanimously by both boards, Truman turned to wrap up the meeting on a collaborative note.

“If the HVAC goes out at CMS, come to us, let us know, let’s work together,” she said. “We are looking, from the county standpoint, at trying to prepare for budgets to come in the years to come. We want to work with you all.”

Berryman echoed the sentiment, urging the school system to protect its fund balance through the budget year. “Let’s see if we can’t at least strive for a zero amount of money,” he said. “If we have an emergency, please come sit down with us. We’ll have a meeting on this.”

The Gates County Board of Education’s next budget-related meetings are scheduled for May 14 at Gatesville Elementary School and May 18 at Mill Pond. The full budget presentation to the commission is set for June 1.