(Board Members: Chairman Dekle, Vice Chair/D1 Philip Kent, D2 Kristi Baker, D3 Judy Teasley, D4 Katie Allen)

1. Call To Order: 5:30 pm

2. Invocation: Tabernacle Baptist Church Executive Minister of Operations, Reverend Michael Woods

3. Pledge of Allegiance: Baker Places Elementary School 4-H Presidents

4. Approval of Agenda: Yay 4, Opposed 1 (Katie Allen)

Before vote, Allen made the following motion but there was no second: “I make a motion to amend the agenda to remove item nine, due to the fact that the resolution we will be discussing tonight was sent today at 2:44 p.m. It is not the resolution requesting local legislation that was intended to be discussed.”

Dekle: That's on the agenda for discussion, and if a resolution is presented, it all falls into that category.

5. Special Recognitions

   1. Georgia Certified Teacher Induction Program Award

      1. Dr. Carrie Ann Cushman, Director of Professional Learning

      2. Tony Wright, Chief Human Resources Officer

   2. Georgia Department of Education John Hancock Award Schools

      1. Proficiency Award: At least 90% of students can write their names in cursive.

         1. Blue Ridge Elementary – Principal Jessica Williams

         2. Brookwood Elementary – Principal Dr. Leslie Dial

         3. Grovetown Elementary – Principal LaToya Jackson-Barnett

         4. North Columbia Elementary – Principal Tonya Gambrell

         5. North Harlem Elementary – Principal Melissa Culpepper

         6. Parkway Elementary – Principal Stephanie Winter

         7. Riverside Elementary – Principal Lynn Gardner

         8. Stallings Island Middle – Principal Vicki Tarleton

      2. Distinction Award: At least 90% of students can write their names and the preamble to the U.S. Constitution in cursive.

         1. Euchee Creek Elementary – Principal Katy Yeargain

         2. Greenbrier Elementary – Principal Ashlee Odom

         3. River Ridge Elementary – Principal Michelle Miller

         4. Stevens Creek Elementary – Principal Kelli Robertson

   3. Georgia Department of Education Title 1 Distinguished and Reward Schools

      1. Title I Distinguished Schools:

         1. Blue Ridge Elementary – Principal Jessica Williams

         2. Brookwood Elementary – Principal Dr. Leslie Dial

         3. Martinez Elementary – Principal Dr. Whitney Smith

         4. Westmont Elementary – Principal Angie Young

      2. Title I Reward School:

         1. Euchee Creek Elementary – Principal Katy Yeargain

   4. Georgia Thespian Honor Society State Officer Recipients

      1. Eli Bisel – Harlem High School

      2. Abigail Alwine – Grovetown High School

6. Board Comments and Acknowledgments":

   Board members Kristi Baker, Judy Teasley, Philip Kent, and Katie Allen congratulated award recipients and thanked students, teachers, administrators, and families for their contributions to the district. Baker shared an anecdote about encountering Columbia County teachers at Disney World. Teasley praised the cursive writing awards and expressed surprise that the district had not previously earned teacher induction certification.

7. Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

   1. 9/22/2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes

   2. Fundraisers

   3. Employee Travel

   4. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

   5. Lease/Use of Facilities

8. Unified District Literacy Pan, LeAnne Greg. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• Developed in response to HB 1193 and state literacy requirements.

• K–12 plan formalizes many literacy initiatives already in place.

• Focus on reading, writing, speaking, listening, vocabulary, and critical thinking across all subjects.

• K–3 progress measured through universal screeners; grades 3–12 through Georgia Milestones and reading readiness data.

• Students needing additional help receive targeted interventions through MTSS.

• Literacy Coaches

  • District plans to place a full-time literacy coach in every elementary school.

  • Currently recruiting and screening applicants.

  • Four elementary schools will begin implementation in January 2027.

  • Coaches will receive professional development throughout spring 2027.

  • Full implementation scheduled for August 2027.

  • Coaches will support teachers with instructional strategies, modeling, and planning.

• Board Discussion

  Teasley: Asked how this differs from current practices.

  Gregg: Many initiatives already in place, but previously no comprehensive written plan.

  Teasley: Is state paying for all these positions?

  Flynt: State pays a portion through QBE. District will have additional expenses. Already receiving state funding, which will remain in reserves until positions are filled.

  Teasley: How were the 4 schools selected?

  Gregg: Collaborative decision between associate superintendents and curriculum staff. Selected schools representing a range of literacy needs.

  Kent: Elementary teachers have a lot on their plates, including ESL, gifted, and special ed students. Additional literacy coaches should help?

  Gregg: Coaches will benefit both teachers and students.

  Kent: Did the state provide guidance or did the district develop its own plan?

  Gregg: HB 1193 established qualifications and job requirements for coaches. District developed its own literacy plan based on existing initiatives.

9. Resolution Requesting Local Legislation for Homestead Exemption in Anticipation of Data Center Revenue

   (This portion is transcripted)

   Flynt: Board members, we’re at the point in the meeting where the topic is a resolution requesting local legislation for homestead exemption in anticipation of data center revenue. As you’ll recall, the last couple of meetings we’ve had some very good discussion on this. I don’t think we’re in the place where we have a final version, but we did want to have a continued discussion. You’ve seen a couple of drafts. Thank you for your input. I don’t think we’ve hit the mark quite perfectly yet, but through your input, I think we’ll be able to get there.

   I think at this time, the best next step is continued discussion as a board, which I’d be happy to participate in as well, and trying to get to that final resolution, which we would try to bring at the next meeting, assuming we get to that point.

   Dekle: I’d just like to open the floor up for any questions or discussions regarding this matter, which is a work in process.

   Kent: I’d actually like to make a motion to approve a resolution. Last meeting, we put forth what we wanted to have in a resolution. We voted unanimously to approve specific items, particularly involving how homesteaders would receive tax relief off data center revenue, and acknowledge the work that’s already been done to create pathways to achieve that goal.

   I feel like we’re in a position to do it. We discussed it quite a bit last meeting. I’d rather not see it go to another meeting. We need to move things forward. There’s work that needs to be done. There’s a base resolution that the rest of the body up here has in front of them that is a very broad resolution that just shows our intent and what our intent is for these dollars. I think it’s important for the public to know what our intent is in this regard.

   And so I make a motion that we actually do this general broad resolution, and it’s Columbia County Board of Education Resolution Expressing Its Intent to Pursue Property Tax Relief in Anticipation of Potential Additional Revenue Generated by Data Centers and Other Commercial Development.

   Motion seconded.

   Allen: One, the resolution that we requested as a board at the end of our previous meeting was not the resolution that was provided on Wednesday. It was significantly different. I had sent an email to Dr. Flynt explaining why it was different than the motion we approved, which was for a broad resolution.

   Dr. Flynt, to your credit, I appreciate that you brought back another version. However, all that did take time. The resolution in front of us tonight was sent at 2:44 p.m., Mr. Kent. That was not enough time for me to thoroughly review it.

   The resolution that was sent that essentially corrected the Wednesday one was sent Monday very quickly, considering by the time I reviewed it and was able to voice how it was entirely different from what we agreed, that was Sunday evening, very late. So again, a quick turnaround from Dr. Flynt on Monday to provide that resolution.

   However, ultimately, my issues are procedural. One, the public knows that we intend to give taxpayer money back, and I want to preserve that because I’m seeing, problematically, in some of these resolutions and the legislation that was drafted and provided to us to be our legislation, I’m seeing loopholes so clear, and those need to be explored. Those need to be closed.

   I don’t want a loophole that says we could give taxpayer money back to the citizens, but here’s all the ways we don’t have to. That is the last thing I want.

   So I want us to make sure we take the time this needs, do it right, look through this resolution, which is the first step in this process, and come back in two weeks when we’ve had time to review Mr. Kent’s updated version, which may be fine.

   But at the same time, this is so important. Also, procedurally, the item on the agenda that was published to the public 24 hours in advance of that meeting specifically states the title of the resolution that was provided to us on Wednesday, which means the item on the agenda for this meeting is not the same as the resolution that we are now being asked to approve.

   So for the purposes of discussion, I can go into the legislation, but ultimately the resolution, just from the bit that I’ve read in the time since I arrived at this meeting and got to read through it at my desk here, I’m seeing potentially some areas where it allows for this other draft legislation, which, to my understanding, Dr. Flynt, that draft legislation that you provided on Wednesday is already at Legislative Council for review, and Gary Richardson is already working to some extent with us.

   Flynt: We would do that with any adjustments or changes.

   Allen: Right. So we’re pretty serious about this legislation, and I think there’s things in there that do not protect our intent to bring taxpayer money back to citizens.

   So before we do a resolution that moves us in that direction, we need to take two weeks. Come back at the next meeting prepared to talk about this resolution that Mr. Kent has provided. Have it ensured that it matches the agenda item that the public was provided, so that we are doing things procedurally correctly, because it is a very dangerous precedent to put something on the agenda and then discuss and approve something entirely different during the agenda.

   Dekle: I would just point out that we actually voted at the last meeting to entertain a resolution.

   The substitute resolution, or the one presented by Mr. Kent, which actually, I think Superintendent Flynt sent something out last Wednesday asking for input. He didn’t receive anything from you, Ms. Allen, until Sunday night.

   Then he put together, as you acknowledge, a more general resolution, and that came out on Monday. So that was in people’s hands on Monday, and Mr. Kent worked on some revisions that he proposes.

   And so, you know, we don’t always have the advantage of all the time in the world that we would like. But I have had an opportunity to review this resolution. I think it comports with the spirit and intent of what we voted on at the last meeting. So there should be no surprises.

   And as far as the draft legislation that we’re looking at, it’s a work in process, and we’re not ready to present that. Hopefully, whatever we arrive at, we’ll be able to reach a consensus so that we can move forward in a timely manner as the General Assembly session approaches.

   Allen: Chairman Dekle, I would counter that. Yes, it came out Wednesday. Beginning Friday, all the way through Sunday, I spent, conservatively estimating, at least 10 hours researching.

   You provided draft legislation and a legal resolution to go with it. That was very consequential for this county. It takes time to research legislation, see what other counties are doing, see what problems they may have had, look at potential legal consequences, look at ways things can be abused through language, look at ways that language leaves things open to interpretation.

   It does take time. It took me 10 hours. I don’t know what time it took you, Chairman Dekle, or the fellow board members, but something like this should take time.

   Which is why even a Wednesday to a Tuesday vote, to me, is very quick. But certainly a Sunday or a Monday or 2:44 p.m. to a final vote should take time.

   Kent: We’re not planning to adopt—

   Allen: That’s what’s on the agenda.

   Dekle: This resolution does not adopt any specific request or specific legislation.

   Kent: This is specifically what you actually agreed to and voted for in the last meeting that we had. So I think we’re honoring exactly what we said we wanted.

   It’s different from what came out originally, but it was time for us to put it in a place where it all was in virtue of everything you agreed to in the last meeting.

   So it makes sense for us to move forward with this, I believe, based on that, because we have to start somewhere.

   The other items that you brought, specific to particular legislation and all the ramifications of that, those will be discussed. But you have to start with a resolution. You have to start somewhere. Otherwise, we just keep kicking the can.

   And honestly, the superintendent and the administration, they have to do some work in order to create these pathways to accomplish what our intent is.

   Unless you’re suggesting that you’re changing the intent for what the taxpayer dollars are going towards, which is homestead tax. Has that changed?

   Allen: My intent is as documented in these minutes, which is develop a resolution on potential property tax relief from data center revenue should data center revenue become available. Board member Katie Allen seconded the motion, provided that the resolution would serve as a broad intent statement.

   Okay, that could be in this resolution, but just one item in this resolution that’s very problematic is:

   “Whereas the board recognizes the importance of providing quality public education while maintaining responsible fiscal management and minimizing the property tax burden on taxpayers to the extent reasonably practicable.”

   That’s important. But when I pair that with the legislation that was presented by Dr. Flynt on Wednesday, there’s a clause in there that states that the board decides how much of that data center revenue is set aside to return back as homestead exemption credits.

   And the board has the opportunity to transfer any additional funds that they don’t return to the public back to the general fund.

   Kent: We’re not voting on that tonight.

   Allen: No, but this opens the door, and I want, from the resolution step forward, that we close the door on any of those intent loopholes by taking two weeks to ensure that the resolution that we put forward ensures that the legislation that follows it does not have openings that can be exploited in that way.

   Kent: This resolution doesn’t refer to those items that you’re mentioning, and it’s very clear. And the conversations that we had, that you do not want this to move forward, is very clear. That is not—

   And so at this time, I’d like for—do the other board members have any questions? Because I think it’s important that not just me or Katie be talking.

   Teasley: I’d like to address Ms. Allen’s concern in terms of how much money is returned.

   Hopefully, we’ll be able to return the maximum amount every year. But keep in mind that we don’t know what every year will look like.

   Let’s say we’re in a situation where teachers are furloughed, they’re having to work for no pay. Would we return everything to property owners if we can’t pay teachers?

   Let’s say that we have another year of humongous increases in insurance premiums and other unfunded state mandates. Would we return everything in the way of additional property taxes and then do without what we need for instructional purposes?

   Or do we need, as a board or any board that happens to be sitting here at any point in time, do we need to have to trust in elected officials to be able to make that decision?

   And I think we do because we don’t always know what the situation is going to be in any given year.

   Dekle: The resolution on the table tonight doesn’t address any specific legislation or anything like that. Our administration is still working on that and looking at all potential pathways.

   This, I think, merely addresses what we voted on in the last meeting.

   Allen: Just to add to that, this resolution does a lot. It opens the door to potentially looking at hiring consultants. That’s using taxpayer money.

   And I’ve been on this board long enough to know that when time and effort is put into something and it moves forward in the process, just like with the Harlem High School bonds, just like many of the votes, by the time it gets to the board, things have already been put in place to where essentially the decision has already been made.

   And the fact that nobody, that we’re not willing to wait two weeks for this, I have to wonder why.

   And the answer to me is that the legislation that was provided on Wednesday that has already been sent to Legislative Council, that Gary Richardson is already looking over, that’s essentially the final decision of the board, and these discussions and this vote is really just kind of a show.

   Teasley: I can tell you that’s not the final decision. It might be, but it won’t be because everybody on the board votes for it. It’s not mine.

   Kent: It’s a resolution, very broad. It’s very broad, and we have to start somewhere.

   Allen: So, Mr. Kent, why do we have to start tonight versus in two weeks when—

   Kent: We only have two more meetings. Yeah, because you would like to probably not start it at all because we know your position on data centers.

   Allen: This is a—

   Kent: We have to start somewhere and move forward with it. If we’re going to, this is a very broad, easy way to get the ball rolling.

   Allen: This leaves loopholes open to not do what we promise and we intend to do, which is return data center money back to taxpayers.

   Kent: Absolutely not.

   Allen: It allows for that, but it also allows for that not to happen, and that’s dangerous because—

   Kent: Would you like to read the resolution?

   Allen: You can, but I’ve already pointed out certain things that are going to have to be discussed.

   And again, Mr. Kent, why not two weeks? We’re not expecting any sort of, according to Chairman Dekle, 2029 is the year we’re expecting substantial revenue.

   Kent: You don’t know the answer to that question either, which is why we have to do a broad resolution to prepare for something that we are not—we know we’re expecting it to come, but we don’t know exactly when it’s going to come.

   Did you read somewhere that 2029 is definitive? Because I don’t think that’s true.

   Allen: Do you disagree with it? When do you expect substantial revenue?

   Kent: We don’t know, but we have to prepare for it. We know it’s imminent and it is coming. We can’t keep kicking the can.

   Allen: Chairman Dekle, can you explain why your understanding was 2029?

   Dekle: I’m just basing that on my review of the financial impact statement that was presented by the Economic Development Council.

   I think Mr. Kent’s implication is that the county might give us a portion of the money that they’ll be receiving, but we don’t have any commitment from them on that yet.

   But if it does happen, that would be great, and it would be nice to have something in place.

   I view it from the standpoint that there’s no reason to delay other than if you just want to delay it.

   As far as this resolution, they’re still working on our final proposal, so we’re not voting on that tonight.

   But this motion is on the floor, and I think we’ve really discussed it. Call the question and have a vote at this time.

   Dekle: All in favor of this resolution as presented by Mr. Kent, please raise your right hand. All opposed, please raise your right hand. Any abstentions?

   Allen: Due to three hours to review, and it not matching the agenda item.

   Dekle: Okay. So passes four-zero, one abstention, and this resolution will end up in final form and have that signed.

   Does anyone have any other questions about this item regarding the status of what the administration is working on, and our legal counsel who is here as well, as far as looking at the avenues for providing homestead taxpayer relief in the future?

   [Motion (Kent): Approve the resolution expressing the board’s intent to pursue property tax relief in anticipation of potential additional revenue from data centers and other commercial development.

   Vote: Yay 4, No 0, Abstention 1 (Allen)]

   Kent: I actually do. Dr. Flynt, do you need something from us again as a body to allow you to do your work? Because right now it’s more or less research and searching for pathways and looking for options, which you presented to us. Do you need something from us, a motion or something, that allows you to continue your work with the legislators and whoever’s sponsoring the bill? Would that make you feel comfortable if we put forth that type of motion?

   Flynt: I think this does some of that. I do think once we get to that point, we may want to consider—I don’t know that you’re going to have to, but I think you may also want to consider, once we get that final draft, although the risk there is that may change when it gets down in the General Assembly because that’s their work. We’re making a recommendation for them to do that now. Other legislation similar has passed, and that’s why we’ve been considering this direction. It also doesn’t impact, from everything we’ve seen, the five-mill share, the equalization grant, which could in one year account for close to $30 million in losses if it was all to go away or change our five-mill buy-in for the state.

   So those other areas have, while we’re still continuing to look at it, other places across the country have used some of those. I think legal could maybe share some of those as well.

   But similar to 439, this is not a constitutional amendment, but it doesn’t require the payments like 439. It increases the homestead, which is really the only way we’ve found so far that keeps that impact negligible to the school district. If not, it could be very impactful negatively on our state funding.

   Teasley: Considering we only have three meetings left this year, okay, so we’re going to be able to discuss and propose legislation next board meeting so that we can hopefully have something finalized with our local delegation, if they can present in January.

   Allen: So I would like to ask my questions tonight. Proposed legislation, this is, as you said, already in Legislative Council. Is that correct?

   Flynt: They will provide feedback along the way. So if anything changes, they’ll continue to provide feedback. I have not received any feedback on the initial submission. If we do, we’ll let you know.

   Kent: Would you like a directive from us to allow you to pursue it further, so that we’re following a process that you’re comfortable with? Because there might be some individuals on the board that may not want you to move forward with certain things without us actually telling you to do that. Would you like for us to do that? I don’t have a problem with you doing that, and I can do that if you’d like, Mr. Chairman.

   Allen: The resolution already covers that, correct?

   Kent: And if it doesn’t, I can put forward this motion, and it doesn’t have to pass, but it is on my mind, and I think it could provide some—I think it could help some board members on this panel.

   Dekle: What would the motion be?

   Kent: So I would move that the board direct the superintendent, board attorney, financial advisor, and appropriate district staff to continue the development, legal review, financial analysis, and refinement of the proposed floating homestead exemption legislation attached hereto. We don’t have to attach it, but we can. It certainly has been provided as a promising pathway toward accomplishing the property tax relief objective established in the resolution of intent that we just passed. Exhibit A is provided as the current working draft for reference, and further development is not approved by this motion as final legislation. As part of that work, the superintendent and board attorney are authorized and directed to engage with the local legislative delegation, appropriate state officials, and other necessary parties to evaluate, develop, and formulate any local or state legislation that may be required to accomplish the board’s property tax relief objective.

   This direction shall not constitute final approval of any legislation, nor shall it limit or discontinue research, evaluation, development of any other lawful pathway that may become available or more effective in providing meaningful property tax relief to qualifying owner-occupied primary homesteads in Columbia County.

   Dekle: That was a lot. Can I restate the motion? Is it that you move to direct the superintendent to continue his process?

   Kent: As long as that motion also includes the fact we will not—we’re not closing the door on other potential pathways to accomplish our goal that’s in our intent.

   Dekle: The resolution has that.

   Kent: Right.

   Dekle: Yeah, the resolution has that. But may I get a second?

   Allen: I did. I seconded it.

   Dekle: Any further discussion?

   Allen: So for discussion, essentially you took the watered-down version that you provided at 2:44 for quick passage. Now you’re verbally doing another motion for essentially permission to do everything that was pulled out of the original resolution, which was sent on Wednesday.

   Kent: No, the original—

   Allen: Everything you said is all points of—

   Kent: That’s false. The original resolution actually said we were committed to that bill.

   This second motion actually says the door is open for other opportunities, but it allows the superintendent to do his work and move forward with what is perceived as the best pathway today.

   Again, does not close the door on other possibilities. That is the huge difference in this motion.

   Allen: Can you read that again slowly, please?

   Teasley: There’s a motion and a second on the floor, right?

   Allen: Can you restate the motion?

   Teasley: It’s Mr. Dekle’s motion.

   Dekle: Motion and a second.

   The motion, I restated his motion basically in much shorter form, to direct the superintendent to continue his work with respect to finding, working on pathways or potential legislation, with the proviso that we’re not committing to that. We’re looking at all possible avenues. Something better might come along.

   Allen: So what Mr. Kent read out loud is in no way, now that it’s on the record, it’s in no way part of that restated motion?

   Teasley: We’re not committing to anything.

   Allen: As I understand it, he’s committing to this legislation that was attached as a—

   Teasley: But we’re not committing to any legislation. We’re committing right now to exploring legislation, and the best path forward is going to meet our needs.

   Kent: We’re allowing the superintendent to do his work so that we can actually come up, so he can come up with a pathway solution to meet our resolution intent.

   Without doing that, I think it puts him in a position that’s very difficult to be able to work with legislators to put forth an actual and orchestrated, architected bill that would accomplish that goal.

   Allen: So have we not already done that? Given the fact that this draft is in Legislative Council and Gary Richardson is working on it, essentially where you’re trying to give him approval for what they’ve already done?

   Kent: No, we’re not. That would sound very different.

   Allen: Can we pull this then from Legislative Council?

   Kent: This is based off an existing House Bill 1582, correct? I think that’s the number. That’s an existing bill that’s been passed into law. It’s not been created yesterday.

   Teasley: But that’s not one that this board has approved.

   Allen: Right. And I don’t want ours matching 1582 because I saw things in 1582 that we should—

   Teasley: And I understand that. But we’re not talking about legislation tonight. We’re not approving legislation right now.

   We’re asking the superintendent to continue to look for legislative possibilities that will allow us to give taxpayers relief and continue to educate students.

   Allen: So let’s clarify. The legislation you sent on Wednesday that is in Legislative Council, you will continue working on that, and the board has given approval based on this resolution to continue working towards that, in addition to other pathways.

   Kent: I think we’re moving from exploration, if you will, into actually working closely to come up with a solution. I think that’s what we’re doing here.

   Teasley: Exploration, solution. You have to explore solutions.

   Dekle: Can we call the question on the subsequent motion and ask for a vote?

   All in favor, raise your right hand. All opposed. Any abstentions?

   [Motion (Kent, restated by Dekle): Direct the superintendent to continue developing potential legislative pathways for property tax relief without committing to any particular legislation or excluding other options. Vote: Yay 4, No 0, Abstention 1 (Allen)]

   Allen: I couldn’t even tell you what the motion fully was.

   Dekle: Okay. Good, healthy discussion. Thank y’all very much. Our plan, keep working on it, and let’s go to our next item

10. Bid Results. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

11. Superintendent Reports

    1. SAT Scores

       1. 1105

       2. Up 17 points from last year.

       3. 74 points above the state average and 94 points above the national average.

    2. Graduation rate for 2026 was 93.75%, the district’s highest since 2011. All five high schools had graduation rates above 90%.

       • Greenbrier: 95.93%

       • Evans: 94.15%

       • Lakeside: 93.47%

       • Grovetown: 92.92%

       • Harlem: 91.99%

    3. October is National Principals Month

    4. October 2 as Custodian Appreciation Day

    5. Instructional Coaches Appreciation Day, Georgia Pre-K Week, and National School Lunch Week.

    6. PSAT scheduled for October 14 for eighth- and tenth-grade students.

    7. Report cards also scheduled for October 14.

    8. Columbia County Board of Education received the Georgia School Boards Association’s 2026 Exemplary School Board recognition.

12. Public Participation: None

13. Executive Session: Yay 5, No 0. 6:44-7:07 pm

    1. ExecutedAffidavit: Yay 5, No 0

    2. Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

14. Adjourn: 7:08 pm

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: Abilene Baptist Church Education Pastor John Sansom

Pledge of Allegiance: Greenbrier ES & Parkway ES 4-H Presidents

Approval of Amended Agenda

• Philip Kent made a motion to add Discussion about Data Center Revenue to Agenda: Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen)

• Allen moved to change Agenda Item 11 from “Bid Results” to “Building Program Bid Results”: Yay 4, No 1 ( David Dekle)

Special Recognitions

• Army STEM Teacher Fellowships

  • David Phillips, Greenbrier Middle School

• Georgia Art Education Association 2027 State Art Educator Award Winner

  • Tiffany Weser, Columbia Virtual Academy

• Junior Achievement of Georgia 19 Under 19 Honoree

  • Caycee Hill, Greenbrier Middle School

• Savannah River National Laboratory K-12 Catalyst Grant for STEM Education

  • Raley Arnold, North Columbia ES

  • Jennifer Young, Steven Creek ES

  • David Phillips, Greenbrier Middle School

• TechNet Augusta Capture the Flag Tournament

  • Middle School Division, 3rd Place

    • Pack Hunters Team, Greenbrier Middle School

      • Isabella Goodman

      • Tarik Kalelioglu

      • Suhrudh Medan

      • Dempsey Shehorn

  • High School Division, Greenbrier High School

    • 1st Place, Hard Drive Team

      • Lucas Bew

      • Brayden Edelman

      • Chance Thompson

      • Ryan Youmands

    • 2nd Place, Zif Switch

      • Andrew Beier

      • Jackson Clung

      • Logan Mulrding, Alejandro Pascal

    • 3rd Place, Jump Drive

      • Kyan Fleming

      • Cade Mitchell

      • Benjamin Park

      • Cayden Wamsley

Board Comments:

• Congratulated students and educators recognized for their achievements, praising their hard work, leadership, and dedication. They also thanked the families and staff who support students and highlighted the district’s STEM, cybersecurity, and career and technical education opportunities.

Approval of Consent items: Yay 5, No 0

• 9/8/2026 Minutes

• August Financials

• Budget Amendment and Transpers

• Fundraisers

• Employee Travel

• Program/Camp/Employee Participation Request

• Lease/Use of Facilities

Discussion Topics and Presentations

• Inspiring The Promise of the Columbia County School District Baker Place Elementary School, Associate Superintendent Cummings

  • Principal Sean Prouty highlighted school’s focus on strong relationships, individualized instruction, and student growth. Discussed differentiated instruction for students at all levels and Bell Ringers Club, which allows students to set individual goals and celebrate their progress. Emphasized collaboration among teachers, admin, families, and community to ensure students feel known, supported, and challenged.

• District Writing Framework, “K–12 ACE Writing Framework”, Dr. Campbell

  • Dr. Campbell

    • Vertically aligned approach designed to provide consistent writing instruction K-12

    • Shared resources and expectations are intended to reduce learning gaps, avoid unnecessary repetition, and support sustained writing growth.

  • Leslie Phillips

    • Framework based on Georgia Milestones 3-trait writing rubric.

    • Uses consistent color coding and visual cues across grade levels to reinforce writing concepts.

    • Skills like transitions progress from basic connections in early grades to more complex analytical writing in high school.

  • Tracey Hampson

    • Conferencing, goal-setting, and reflection resources.

    • Teachers can use student goals, reflections, and conference data to differentiate whole-group, small-group, and individual instruction.

    • Resources help students identify strengths, focus on specific areas for improvement, and monitor their writing progress.

    State Recognition

    • Gained attention from the Georgia Department of Education.

    • District staff invited to present during statewide DOE webinar on October 8.

    • Georgia Public Broadcasting plans to film district teachers implementing the framework for instructional videos that will be available to teachers statewide.

Staff Reports

• Special Education Update, LeAnne Gregg and Sharard Pritchett

  • More than 200 SPED teachers, case managers, related service providers, and administrators participated in 3rd annual Summer Institute.

  • Professional learning focused on instruction, behavior supports, compliance, legal updates, literacy, IEP development, and data-driven instruction.

  • Additional training and support are being provided to paraprofessionals, case managers, administrators, and specialized-program teachers.

  • Elementary co-teachers are receiving training in structured literacy interventions.

  • SPED department chair is now assigned to every school to provide daily support with instruction, behavior, compliance, and specialized programs.

  • District staff reported improved communication, quicker problem-solving, and greater access to school-level support.

  • Centralized teacher toolkit, weekly updates, and monthly newsletter provide consistent guidance and resources.

  • SPED support has increased approximately 22.4% over the past three fiscal years.

    (not transcribed)

  • Chairman Dekle: Asked how many students are served through special education. Pritchett said approximately 4,000.

  • Katie Allen: Asked about the IEP process when a parent requests an evaluation. Staff explained that parents can initiate a request; parental consent begins a formal comprehensive evaluation, which has a 60-day timeline, followed by a team eligibility determination.

  • Judy Teasley: Discussed the role of MTSS, noting that some students may receive additional interventions and close learning gaps without ultimately needing an IEP. She also clarified that special education eligibility criteria are established by the state, not the district.

  • Kristi Baker: Asked whether some schools might eventually need more than one special education department chair. Staff said no need has been identified yet but workloads will continue to be monitored.

  • Philip Kent: Asked whether special education staff have adequate resources and access to appropriate legal expertise. Staff said they have access to the professional and legal support they need.

  • Katie Allen: Asked about options when parents and the district disagree over eligibility. Staff said parents have procedural safeguards and formal complaint/due-process options, but the district encourages working through the case manager, principal, and district staff first.

  • Allen: Asked about disputes over IEP meeting minutes and changes to IEP supports. Staff said minutes are reviewed before meetings conclude and that changes to supports must go through the IEP meeting process.

  • Allen: Asked about special education staffing. Staff reported a fill rate above 95%, down from approximately 99% at the beginning of the school year, with paraprofessional vacancies contributing to the decline.

• The High School Experience Update, Dr. Brian Campbell and Brooks Smith

  • Students can begin earning high school credits in middle school and later participate in CTAE, Fine Arts, Advanced Academic Pathways, AP, IB, Dual Enrollment, and Work-Based Learning.

  • District currently offers 24 CTAE pathways across 5 high schools, with industry certifications tied to workforce needs.

  • Students earned more than 1,000 industry certifications last year.

  • Work-Based Learning: 602 students participated in 2026 with 457 business partners, earning more than $3 million collectively.

  • Heavy Equipment/Construction Equipment Operator pathway: 34 students are enrolled and completing the three-course pathway in one year. 5 large equipment simulators were expected to arrive in October, and students preparing for a November 19 construction competition.

  • Advanced Placement: AP course enrollment continued to increase, reaching 8,775 course enrollments in 2026–27. Staff clarified that this represents course enrollments, not unique students.

  • SAT Prep: District launched an online SAT preparation program for seniors using Progress Learning. At the time of the meeting, 177 students were participating in math and 154 in reading/writing.

  • Public Management & Administration pathway: Enrollment increased from 114 students in 2024–25 to 317 in 2026–27. The pathway combines CTAE coursework with government, national security, economics, and other social studies credits.

  • Dual Enrollment: 802 students are participating in dual enrollment this school year. Augusta University is offering courses directly at each high school, with 184 students enrolled in those on-campus offerings during the current semester.

  • The district said its continuing goals include increasing pathway completion and the percentage of students who earn AP, dual-enrollment, CTAE, or Fine Arts credentials before graduation.

Custodial Supplement. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• State funded a $1,000 supplement for district custodians and lead custodians, providing $185,000 based on the number of active custodians reported last fall.

• Including employees not covered by the state allocation and FICA costs, the total cost is estimated at $214,000, requiring approximately $29,000 in district funds.

• The supplement will be paid in two installments: one in December and one in June.

Building Bid Result. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• Staff recommended purchasing additional furniture for Evans High School and Harlem High School from Georgia Specialty Equipment.

• Evans High School: $132,405.80, funded through the 2022–2027 E-SPLOST cycle.

• Harlem High School: $171,190.87, funded through 2025 bonds.

• Total: $303,596.67.

• Staff said the solicitation was sent to more than 15 vendors; Kent asked about vendor participation and ensuring adequate competition.

Data Center Revenue Discussion (transcribed)

Kent: If you don’t mind… [inaudible], maybe give us a little bit of an update on where we stand on data center activity, the expectation of a dollar a week. We’ve seen a financial impact report come through recently, right? It shows potential revenues. If you don’t mind, let’s share more of that. Legislation.

Flynt: So Obviously, the discussion not only with board of commissioners that we’ve heard, but with the board of education has been looking for ways to make sure any additional revenue from that area would be able to be given back to the taxpayers, specifically homesteaded properties. You’ll remember, here today, we’ll remember that at the last meeting we were discussing. Possible options. One of the areas of focus was to be pretty clear that some of the legislation that has already been passed would be very difficult for school districts because of the unique situation that school districts are in. And so, there’s a we went through some of that. But the five mil share that’s a payback to the state as well as equalization kind of clouds that issue. And there’s some very specific laws preventing what we can and can’t do with tax tax funds. So now, as as we look into that, the the school district has narrowed down three basically different avenues that we could take to provide that revenue back to homesteaded properties. After an analysis of those. I think the best that we found through discussion with legal has is one that’s been passed across the state that we’re developing for. We’re going to write a draft for that just for Columbia County. With that, we’re going to work with our local legislative delegation to have them share that with legal counsel, which is kind of a step in the process. We’re going to try to get that done. Excuse me.

Dekle: You said legal counsel. You mean legislative counsel, right?

Flynt:Yeah, legislative counsel. I’m sorry. Thank you. For, for the general assembly. We’re going to try to get ahead of that a little bit and have them go ahead and review that and provide some feedback that we might be able to bring back to y’all if there’s any concerns. We’re also going to work with local tax commissioner, tax assessors to make sure they don’t have any concerns in those areas. Once we’re finished with that, we believe that should take. A month or so. Hopefully, we’ll have a good example or a good draft of that legislation that we’ll meet with our delegation on if they have any questions. So they’ll be able to take that in January to the General Assembly. Now it is, from what we understand, local legislation, and so they’d be able to pass that. But we would have to bring that back for a local referendum of our.

Flynt: Of our constituents in the county, that would happen. Assuming that all this happened, that I just went through, that would happen in in November. Similar to what’s happening right now with the county side. Let me just ask our legal counsel if I’ve missed anything. I know you have have been looking at this closely. I don’t want to misrepresent something. All right, Mr. Casado. I know you’ve been looking closely at all this.

Casado: I think you... Yeah, that’s a good representation.

Teasley: Do we need to have this ready by the pre-legislative counsel meeting on November 12?

Flynt: I think that’s reasonable.The discussion will obviously we have a lot of other discussions with them at that time. Hopefully, this discussion will already be finished by that time.

Allen: The question: You said there were three avenues. What were those three avenues.

Flynt: Let me ask legal just to highlight the other two.

Fletcher: So, so when you’re dealing with type of things. I’d say three is kind of four would be a better way to say it. You know, the way that the county is thinking about pushing it is through the recent House Bill 439, but that is not available. School districts specifically drafted for counties and municipalities, so options available. School districts would look at either a constitutional amendment or a statewide legislation like House Bill 439. Problem that is that almost puts you two years out because that would be a statewide action. So, other than that, you’d be looking at either non-legislative opportunities. So, in the way these have done done in other areas, either with data centers or other large commercial projects, these are called pilot programs or payment taxes, and probably would not really be feasible. Here, especially with the timing of everything, has worked out. So then that kind of leads you with the more local legislation angle that would probably be your your fastest avenue to provide change for taxpayers. But I would kind of look at it. I said three when I when I spoke with Dr. Flynt. But as far as the legislation, that can really be broken down into state and local level. So it’s more like four. If that makes sense.

Allen: Just to clarify. Dr. Flynt, you are actively working on legislation right now,

Flynt: Or what we’re doing is taking current legislation that’s already been passed in the state and modifying it based on what they’ve learned over the last year, and also modifying it for use in Columbia County. After we do that, we’ll ask legislative counsel to review and then provide feedback for y’all once we hear some something back from our local delegation.

Allen: What legislation is that?

Fletcher: I mean, kind of a combination. I think it’s it’s fed. I don’t know the number. Yeah, fifteen and eighty - two. And I’ve also looked at some legislation that’s been used in other states that also kind of gives some good different options and ways we could could look at it.

Flynt: And we’re reaching out to them to see what worked and what didn’t work. There’s some areas that they found some challenges with, so we’re going to try to, you know, learn from anything that they’ve learned from.

Allen: In our meeting a couple weeks ago, we talked about how there were challenges, including possibly, probably, the need for constitutional amendment for any legislation to actually be applied. And when did you know? We also talked about it being currently. A legal challenge as far as whether the data centers are going to remain. Moving forward based on the outcome of the legal challenge. So, when did the board decide that we were going to move forward with this piece of legislation?

Flynt: I don’t. I don’t think that’s been decided. We’re we’re just currently right now working on options for you, and that’s the best option that we found. We’ll be bringing it back to you.

Allen: It sounds like it was being worked on and going to be brought back to us completed. Is this the avenue that we’re officially going as a board?

Teasley: No, I mean we would. I, I, to me, you know, this is just my opinion. Local legislation would be the best step, but it would require a constitutional amendment, and it would be written specifically for our needs. So we’ll would would draft something, and then our local legislators would take it to Atlanta, and Council there would draft something. But we could still have input until they draw.

Dekle: I would anticipate a resolution at some point in the future. Also, and at that point, that’s when we would, as a board,

Allen: Vote to move forward. So it seems that a decision was made to put resources towards doing this legislation. When, here, I mean, really, if we receive funds and use funds and distribute funds, and then the legal challenge ends up holding water. Do we not have to give those funds back to the data centers?

Flynt: What? Yeah, legislation. We’re saying. I mean, obviously, I guess they could they could make lawsuits against the legislation, but yeah, I think once we get through the process of trying to narrow this down to what will work for this school district, then we’re going to bring it back to the board so you can have more questions and and we can let some of these work.

Kent: I mean, we we put something out there, we can let it pass. The legal system does their job too, and then we do our due diligence, and we we see how this unfolds, and it’s certainly uncharted territory. So certainly, people will probably see what is uncharted territory, but we’re doing it to help out the taxpayer, which I hope that is the intention of everybody on the panel here. Then I think that really helps our cause. I’d like to ask, if you don’t mind, I don’t think we leave any stone unturned. I feel like this is great, by the way, that we’re doing that pathway. We’re looking at specific bills that have been passed. We talk about the fast path. Fast path sounds a little negative to me because I usually fast paths aren’t always the best path. But fast path could be a nice pathway for us. But passing like a constitutional amendment couldn’t that also be done at the same time? Even though that might take more time, could we potentially have multiple avenues to?

Teasley: The fast path in this case is legislation that’s already been passed.

Kent: But it’s also an easier path. I’m just saying, I’d like for us to look at multiple pathways, including yeah, we’re looking. We want to make sure we’re not playing the conservationists’ side. We’re turning over every stone here because at some point, it might be the conservationists’ good path. It could be a better option.

Dekle: Let me let me ask Mr. Fletcher just one question that might kind of inform us a little better: the path. It can only be presented to the voters in certain years. Is that right?

Fletcher: I think that’s correct. I don’t know that off the top of my head, but that is, you know, a constitutional amendment also requires statewide vote. Right.

Kent: [Inaudible] Have we hired any consultants, or are we looking to hire any consultants in the very near future to help us with this process?

Flynt: We haven’t gotten to that point. I mean, basically, we’ve been. All the local and external legislation that may be similar to this in-house, we’re just kind of drafting some of those changes based on discussions with those other districts that have done it. I do think there’s some level of discussion of that as we move forward. Right now, I think we’re just looking for some of the best options because if if we’re just talking about what’s already been passed in the county.

Flynt: Won’t really work for the school district, and so with that last discussion, we thought, okay, it’s probably best for us to look at these other routes. And I think we’re, you know, still early on.

Kent: So help that funding. I say that because I want to make sure we’re using the resources. These are big dollars here. So if not having consultants is preventing us from moving forward fast enough, I just want to please bring that to us if that is a need.

Flynt: Oh, absolutely, and we’re we’re looking at the and talking with the people who drafted the legislation in the other counties as well, and a lot of those are that that level of consultants. But we have not hired anybody to do this yet.

Allen: And just to jump in here, one, it seems that this legislation circumvents a constitutional amendment, which to me is a red flag that it’s probably going to be challenged. Two, these data centers are brought in under questionable circumstances and questionable processes. They’re being legally challenged, and I question the wisdom of spending money brought in from them before that legal challenge is resolved. And three, this it just seems that we are focusing on how quickly we can return money back to citizens prior to an election to keep a promise that was made before a way to that promise was ever created or determined. And I have going back always to processes. To me, in our haste to keep a promise about these data centers before an election of giving money back, we are now seemingly willing to do legislation that circumvents a constitutional amendment because it takes too much time. We don’t want to wait on the legislative outcome because it takes too much time. We are willing to give money back to people that might have to be returned back to the data center pending the legal outcome because we want to hurry up and get it done. It seems that when we make these kinds of decisions in haste. That we end up digging ourselves a legal hole, and I don’t think it’s wise. I think that money, if it comes to us, needs to be reserved and set aside until the legal challenge is resolved. If it takes a year, it takes a year. If it takes two or three or five, I don’t think we should be spending money hastily and jumping through all these hoops, hiring consultants, working on legislation, circumventing constitutional amendments. Those processes are there for a reason, and I think we need to honor those reasons and put the process of doing it. Correctly and accurately and legally sound, above the haste of giving back data center money tied to an election for political purposes.

Teasley: I’m not sure which election you have in mind, but I don’t think any of this is being done with an election in mind. Nor can it be done by any candidate. I don’t know which election that would be.

Allen: So we’re not trying to have this back to people by November.

Teasley: Absolutely not. That’s not the case. It won’t be done.

Flynt: Our, This would have to go to the general assembly. Start it starts in January, so I mean, it’s not even going to get passed until next calendar year.

Allen: So then, I guess I would ask why the haste?

Flynt: I don’t see any haste. We’ve just been considering legislation that will work for this purpose. We’ve had a discussion at the last meeting, and we’ve brought back some examples. I’m not. I don’t feel haste.

Teasley: You know, at some point, you have to start, and that’s what we’re talking about. Now is a start. Is to look and see what’s available. Start the conversation between us and the local delegations, and what means we would use to do this, and what would best benefit our citizens. The General Assembly meets beginning in January. It meets for forty days. It may or may not get passed this January, and until they meet and pass this, nothing happens, and nobody’s ever.

Allen: If we were, what is the status of the legal challenge to the data centers? I know I asked that question a couple weeks ago. I don’t. Is it anywhere near being resolved?

Fletcher: I, I have no idea. I haven’t looked at it.

Allen: So I would say before we put time and effort into a legislative effort, why maybe we should look at the status of that to see.

Kent: We’re not going. I don’t think we’re going to let the court system stagnate. With ideas on how to utilize the dollars, the dollars are pretty clear based on the report that came out. So I’m not—we should never let the court system step in front of us. They have their responsibility; they’re going to challenge it. Everybody knows this. This challenge we’re talking about, there will be more. I guarantee you. But I don’t think that’s going to should stop us from trying to bring money back to taxpayers. We didn’t decide; we didn’t vote on the data centers, but yet we’re tasked with the responsibility of handling the dollars that are going to be coming to us. And we need to have pathways, and that’s what we’re here to decide. We’re not here to decide, you know, anything, you know, really other than that. So we will face more challenges. There’s no doubt about that. But we don’t. That should not stop us. I want to say one other thing too.

Teasley: The dollars that we’re talking about returning taxpayers may or may not be from data centers. I mean, this could be another development in Columbia County that we’re turning money to the taxpayers. So it could be from death centers. It may be from another form of business. So.

Fletcher: And The goal of any legislation would be to provide y’all discretion and ability, you know, to make a decision each year. It wouldn’t be a finalized. I mean, the idea of this would be to find a system that would allow you to adjust based on the tax revenue that comes in for one year and how it affects next. I think that’s how it feasibly works, which really is not that different how you. Now, it’s just to give you a little additional freedom to those exemptions.

Teasley: Yeah. Another thing I may consider is the sooner we get local legislation, hopefully, the more likely it is it will still be a local issue and not state.

Allen: I think the courts are there to protect our rights. We shouldn’t look at them as a drag to doing what we want. They’re there to protect our rights, and if that takes time, that’s wisdom. Right there is how I look at it. Also, if we’re going to, legislation, I think we need to do the constitutional amendment route because that was the one. It was the route that specifically deals with this, from my understanding, from our meeting two weeks ago. And again, it’s a slow, definite process. We’re talking about doing something that, to my understanding, the state has not done before. And I do want to return money back to citizens. We all are on the same page with that. But the more we hastily bypass slow processes to meet our objectives, there’s. There’s risk to that. These processes are in place for reason. Constitutional amendment processes are in place for reason. I think there’s wisdom since we’re on no timeline now. Thank you for that information, Judy. We’re not trying to get this done. It’s not going to be done anytime soon. So to do a very new HB 1582 legislation and try something new when there is a path, albeit a maybe slower, more thoughtful process with constitutional amendment, I think that would be the best way to go. And then in the meantime, it gives. The legal challenge time to be resolved, so we’re not in a situation where we hastily return money to citizens, only to figure out how to give it back because the data centers are not moving forward, and thus have every right to claim those initial funds back.

Kent: Using the court system as the sole guiding light, I do not advise that. There are multiple processes that take place in our government. The court system is only one, so that cannot be our only path, our guiding path. I’d like if we could, because we haven’t really done this, and I really do think it’s important, and I bring it to the. Here that if we can produce a resolution of sorts of our intent regarding expected data center revenue and property tax relief, so that we can go on the record publicly to let people know what we intend to do with these dollars that are now that we’re going to come to us, we can make a motion that we produce such a resolution. Perhaps the next meeting to that really goes into everything we discussed. It talks about what Mr. Fletcher mentioned and. And Dr. Flynt mentioned that we have gone. We’ve gone through the process of investigating other possibilities and mirroring other bills, and we have potential pathways to be in that resolution to include. Again, our intent to give it back to taxpayers. I hope that we all agree on that. I think we need to say it in the resolution. And it covers everything. Again, those main topics, but everything else that we discussed. And again, I put that motion to the.

Allen: Are you motioning to do that tonight?

Kent: I’m motioning that we put the document together that includes those items, or perhaps be presented at the next meeting. I’m happy tonight if someone has that resolution produced, but if we don’t, I’d like for us to put one together, and that would be fine.

Allen: I will personally go on the record saying I support a resolution that broadly states that if and when money comes from external sources, including a data center, that we will intend to give it back to the. People as taxpayers, so that’s the resolution that you’re saying as a conceptual resolution.

Dekle: That would be the core of it. That would be the core of it. I wouldn’t. I would say that versus spending it, draft legislation and written and done in the way that it needs to be done, and you know, the resolution simply be that. Request that our local delegation present this local legislation, which will empower us to give homestead property tax relief with future revenues in accordance with the proposed legislation. And that that would that would say it all. That would say it would say exactly what we want to do, and it would be the language and how we want to do it. And it will express our intent. So.

Allen: Just to add to that, I did not have this document yesterday when I prepared for the meeting. So, for us to make a decision as a board at this time to say we want to move forward with this idea, I don’t think that’s. I think that’s hasty.

Kent: It’s still aspirationally speaking. We’re talking about if this were to come to fruition, which it looks very clear that it is going to. That this is what we would do with those dollars. That is what I propose in the resolution. Right.

Allen: I’m saying that we’re putting district time and energy towards working on this. Is this work going to pause? So is the work on 1582 going to pause for the next two weeks? Because I’m mindful.

Teasley: We need to be prepared. And if you stop doing the work that needs to be done because of the possibility of you know a legal challenge, then you would never get anywhere.

Allen: I’m asking for two weeks to have time to review this document before making a decision. I think, as a board, we should make a formal motion that we want our district employees, who are very busy, we’re constantly, you know, time, money that they’re investing into doing this. The lawyers that we’re paying as we consult with them. There’s a lot that goes into not only drafting legislation but beginning to work it through the system. As a board, I think we should make a formal motion directing that work before the labor goes. Goes on and happens as it already seems to have started, and I’m asking for two weeks so that I can have time to review this document and us have a discussion about if this is the path we want to pursue. Because there are, as Mr. Fletcher said, at least four technical pathways, none of which I feel that I’ve been fully briefed on.

Kent: That does not pertain to the resolution, in my opinion. No, we’re talking about the resolution. I’d like to ask: Do I have a second?

Dekle: I don’t want to vote to do a resolution, I haven’t... That’s not...

Kent: I’m saying to put together a resolution. I’m not voting on any resolution. Let’s vote. The motion is to put together a resolution. Yeah,

Dekle: Let’s work on one for the. I second that. But we don’t have to have a motion. Let’s work on one for the next meeting. I might have a motion that we are going to do that.

Allen: I second a motion to draft a resolution that conceptually brings any revenue to include data centers back to the citizens, back to the taxpayers. Now we have that presented to us at the next meeting for a vote. Was it a separate motion, or are you seconding his motion? I’m restating his motion as I understand it. Is that your motion as you presented?

Dekle: All right. So, if I understand correctly, the motion is to prepare a resolution with our intent as to what we want to do with revenue from basin.

Allen: Intends not not to be used as a specific pathway, just for clarity, as a broad intent of what we essentially that we’re not going to use it to pay off bonds early or go build another building. Is that you’re going with that, Mr. Ken? Okay, I would.

Dekle: All right. So, any further discussion?

Baker: We’re only voting on bringing the idea of the resolution.

Flynt: To next two weeks. We’ll draft one, and maybe I’ll share. We all can give give us feedback, and we’ll go back. We’ll try to bring it back for the next meeting. That’s all I would say. We’re still going to be working on that. We really don’t think that we will.

Teasley: Yeah,

Allen: I mean,

Dekle: And is the legislation ready?

Allen: No, okay. Because I’m going to be making a separate motion after this to delay all work on this legislation that needs to be separate from what Mr. Kent is trying to do.

Dekle: Okay. Well, let’s let’s vote on Mr. Kent’s motion on.

Allen: So now I make a motion to to halt all district efforts on House Bill 1582 legislative efforts until we’ve been briefed as a board of the meeting for all our options.

Flynt: There’s no actual House Bill 1582...

Allen: Well, what would be the proper names to classify the work the district is doing towards proposed legislation?

Teasley: Proposed legislation.

Flynt: Proposed legislation.

Allen: Okay, so I make a motion that the district pause all work towards proposed legislation until the board has been briefed at a meeting, all of our options, and make a formal decision as a board how we want to pursue the mechanics of returning money back to citizens. I know that’s a lot. Do I need to reset?

[No Second on the motion]

Dekle: So that.

Allen: Means that the work towards this new legislative process is going to continue by the district moving forward

Dekle: Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. I’ll turn it back over to Superintendent.

Superintendent Reports

Dates:

• 10/1 Columbia County Teacher of the Year Celebration

• 10/6 End of First Nine Weeks

• 10/9 Student Fall Break/District Professional Learning Day

• 10/12 Columbus Day

• 10/14 Report Cards

• 11/10 Progress Reports

• 11/11 Veterans Day Holiday

• 11/16-11/20 American Education Week

• 11/23-11/27 Thanksgiving Holiday

• 12/18 Early Dismissal

• 12/21 - 1/4: Winter Break

• 1/5 Professional Learning Day

• 1/6 First Day of Second Semester

• 1/8 Report Cards

Executive Session

• 7:56 pm: Board votes to go into executive session Yay 5, No 0

• 8:58pm: Executed Affidavit Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: 8:58pm

Next Meeting: Regular Session 10/13/2026

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: Martinez Baptist Church Minister of Outreach Reverend Perry Key

Pledge of Allegiance: Evans HS JROTC

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognitions

1. Columbia County School District Teacher of the Yer Finalists for 2027

   1. Ashley Farmer, Brookwood ES

   2. Anna Connolly, Blue Ridge ES

   3. Heather Cottingham, Grovetown ES

   4. Taylor Norwood, Stallings Island MS

   5. Brittany Hayes, Grovetown HS

Board Comments: Congratulated the 5 Teacher of the Year finalists and praised their dedication to students. Philip Kent highlighted the district’s high teaching standards and praised the Evans High JROTC color guard, while Kristi Baker reflected on the Teacher of the Year tradition and praised the recently completed Lakeside HS renovation. Katie Allen emphasized the patience required of educators and thanked finalists for their commitment to students and families. Chairman Dekle called the finalists “cream of the crop”, congratulated them, and also recognized Lakeside staff for school’s recent ribbon cutting.

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

1. Minutes of 8/25/2026, Work Session Meeting

2. Fundraisers

3. Employee Travel

4. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

5. Lease/Use of Facilities

Board Policy EBB, Safety: Yay 5, No 0

Flynt: Policy revised following board input, but overall content had not changed substantially. Policy includes what is required by state law. Minor adjustment made this morning.

Parent Square Update

VanMeter: Transition from Remind to ParentSquare. Reason for switch - ParentSquare bought out Remind. Centralized communication platform for classroom, school, district, transportation and emergency messages. Parents can choose whether to receive routine notifications instantly or in daily digest. Can receive through app, text, email or web portal. Emergency notification override settings.

Toni Clyde (Greenbrier MS Principal: Piloteed last spring and described transition as largely seamless. Staff can easily post files, videos and updates, set office hours, and monitor communications in one place.

Penny Jackson (Transportation): 14,000 users joined transportation groups. Used for bus changes, delays and links to bus tracking. Families don’t have to download the app, but users must be associated with district and communications restricted by school/location.

Judy Teasley: Asked who can access the system, including whether grandparents or others could sign up.

Staff explained that access is tied to district associations and specific groups or locations.

Lakeside HS International Baccalaureate 5-Year Evaluation Agreement: Yay 5, No 0

Flynt: 5-Year evaluation to ensure continued compliance with IB standards and practices. $13,000 annual participation fee and authorize superintendent and board chair to sign a statement affirming the district’s commitment to IB requirements.

Allen: Asked whether IB program is connected to the United Nations, global governance or UN Sustainable Development Goals, noting concerns she had when researching the program several years ago.

Dr. Campbell: Not aware of that connection but acknowledged he hadn’t specifically researched it before.

Teasley: Looked it up on Google during the meeting and reported that her search indicated IB is not part of the United Nations.

Allen: Can support the agreement but raised the issue for further consideration.

Building Program Bid Result - Lakeside HS Roof. Yay 5, No 0

Flynt: District received 14 bids for replacement of the older portions of LHS roof. SRS Inc. submitted the low bid of $1.942 million, which is recommended.

Allen: Questiond why roof was not completed as part of recently finished Lakeside renovation. Project’s earlier GMP included approximately $2.326 million for roofing and asked wether that work had been completed.

Flynt: Earlier roofing work covered the new additions and other portions included in the renovation, while existing older roof was left in place because it had useful life. District got 3 more years from that roof.

Allen: Questioned whether competing the roof during the larger project ight have produced savings through economies of scale.

Dekle and Flynt: Putting additional work through CMAR would have added contractor fees and general conditions.

Kent: Discussion provided insight into the expense of the CMAR process.

Allen: Asked the district to review its process for future projects, and Flynt agreed that the current board would be involved in those discussions.

Board Discussion on Possible Property Tax Revenue from Data Centers

(I tried to get an exact transcript of this but it might not be exact because not everyone spoke in a microphone, and there was some overlap in speech)

Flynt: …the county has approved the data centers, there are estimates available for increased revenue coming from those data centers in future years. Some of the discussion around here has been how’s the best way to make sure that we credit back the taxpayers. Specifically, one of those is homeowners and the homeowner’s tax bill. So we did want to just kind of talk through this a little bit, but give the board a chance to also talk about it. One of the reasons that the county and the school district are a little bit separate on this is because of the way the state funds school districts. The county is very different. So what the county may be able to do—and from what I understand, they’re not able to do it yet, but are going to be working with the delegation to try to have something as far as a law and maybe a constitutional amendment that would be able to approve that within a year or so.

We are doing the same thing. We’re getting expert advice from people who work with school-level funding across the state of Georgia, and making recommendations on possible options that we may be able to bring to the Board of Education.

A couple of things we just wanted to mention, and Mr. Casado obviously can have even more information on this if you have questions. But equalization is tied to a minimum millage rate, and that minimum currently is at 10 mills. If you go below that, then you’re at risk where you would lose access to any equalization dollars. Currently, our equalization is $28 million.

The local fair share is also a piece that we just need to make sure that we discuss because every school district in the state of Georgia, to receive QBE dollars, has to provide the equivalent of a five-mill share back to the state, and obviously there are some things that go into that calculation and some things that are kept out.

And so those two are probably the largest areas that are different from county governments, and something that we’ll have to—not to say that we can’t do it—but just something that’s going to be extremely different for school districts. And so we’ll be learning and working with a number of folks on that, and be bringing that back to y’all.

Mr. Casado, what did I miss on that as far as just a start to this? Okay. So with that said, I thought we would open it up to the board to ask questions or to have a discussion on this area.

Dekle: Well, I think I’d like to understand equalization a little bit better. I didn’t necessarily understand that you lose it when you reach your 10-mill minimum, but equalization, as I understand it, is you have the tax digest of all the counties, and somehow they figure out the richer counties and the poorer counties, and as our tax digest increases based on the value of [inaudible], then we could lose our equalization possibly anyway. So there’s—that’s kind of—I don’t know how you can avoid that.

Flynt: But it’s something that can—it is a good point, and there is no real good way for us to anticipate where our equalization is going to fall. They do take all of the digests across the whole state for that year. We can’t necessarily estimate what everybody else is going to do, kind of like they wouldn’t be able to estimate ours.

But the bottom 50% are the school districts, out of the 180 across the state, that are eligible to receive equalization. So theoretically, as our tax digest goes up, if everybody else remains about the same, then we would slowly move towards that 50%, and eventually be where we wouldn’t receive any if it kept going in that direction.

Teasley: Is there any distinction between commercial and residential in the tax base?

Dr. Flynt: No, and that’s one of the challenges. As you know, the last couple of years there’s been a number of debates because of exemptions, and just recently they have taken out exemptions, which help because we have some large exemptions that are local, and so that has helped us not pay quite as much of that total for the five-mill share as we would have if the exemptions were included. And obviously, the largest is the 70 and above.

Kent: Mr. Fletcher, in your conversations at the state level, what do you see are possible pathways? Not putting you in a box, but it’s uncharted territory for sure. First school system. What do you see are some possible paths as far as utilizing these dollars without potentially impacting equalization in the short term? Maybe, you know, do we get to—is it my understanding that once we get to the 10 mill, do I hear that right? That we start losing favor in equalization? Like we get to that point. It’s not approaching that point?

Flynt: Right, and it used to be—it was just a couple of years ago—that number was at 14 mills, and the state, a number of school districts, were able to go lower because of the tax digest increases. And of course, we’ve been doing—we’ve been reducing our millage. We’re just under 15 now, right? [unclear] Yeah, we’re about five to go. So we have a little ways to go before we get to that point. Yeah, that’s right. But you can’t—you don’t want to go below 10, or I guess if you’ve already—if you lose it all, then it would be okay.

Kent: But do you see any green pathways? Might put you on the spot, Mr. Fletcher.

Fletcher: Well, we are looking at them. You know, y’all know Kent Pollock, you know, with Public [unclear], who does the finances for us. They have—you know, they represent several school districts. Interestingly, we’re the first one to pose this question, so they’re in the earliest stages.

You know, I think you’re obviously going to have to look at some legislation that’s going to be broad. It’s kind of a state level, like this was. It’s going to involve constitutional amendments because not only do you have the issue with the state funding formulas, because the equalization, local tax share, whatnot, House Bill 33, which is kind of hot, but you know, you’ve got unique laws that say that school funds can only be used for educational purposes.

I hate to generalize, but getting a rebate or credit—is that qualifies the educational purpose? So there are a lot of things there.

Kent: Should we get, you know, let’s say we got $10, $15 million or something out of this in a shorter term, and it’s not something we’re waiting three, four, five, seven years for—is this something where we could even accept the dollars and put it into our account and let it sit there until we can figure out a solution for it? Or is there even a possibility we can’t accept it?

Fletcher: I think it’s a possibility that you cannot accept it. I mean, we discussed that too. Obviously, you know, the kind of private revenue bonding—bonds that have been done—you know, without us being like we did with our splost bond financing. You know, it’s kind of what counties do and getting revenue coming in. But you know, it’s just another layer.

Teasley: The money that the county gets, $40 million, that we hear about—they’re fond of saying that we collect most of the property tax. Do we get, what, two-thirds of it? Two-thirds. Do we not get two-thirds of $40 million?

Fletcher: Not if we’re part of that legislation that allows us to get it, or our own legislation that we have to do. I think part of what we’re talking about, if we do something like that, how can we get it through? (unsure after this….)

Allen: Can you clarify when you say we need to pass legislation and we need to get a constitutional amendment? Those are two separate processes, are they not?

Teasley: Yes, we get one, we get the other.

Fletcher: Constitutional amendment, something has to be done on the state basis of referendum, whereas passing legislation, whether it’s local legislation—

Allen: So the constitutional amendment—please correct me if I’m wrong—the constitutional amendment has to be done in order to create a mechanism for this money to be given back to citizens in general. Correct? That’s how it was explained to me.

Fletcher: I think that’s an argument. I think that’s correct.

Allen: Okay, and that would require a two-thirds majority vote in state Congress and a ballot initiative from the people. So when we say legislation, theoretically legislation could happen, and if that constitutional amendment process is not successful, that legislation would be ineffective. Is that correct? Okay.

Again, because I hear legislation, constitutional, I’m just trying to bridge my understanding. So I guess if I’m to walk away with a—don’t hold me to this—understanding of this unique situation.

Okay. Well, and kudos to the board for having this discussion. I think this is just wonderful that we’re speaking so openly about this.

So, in my understanding, there is not currently a path for data center revenue to be returned to citizens at this moment. Okay. And then, and I’m just checking my knowledge here, it would require a constitutional amendment, two-thirds majority vote in state Congress plus the ballot question that the people have to approve, and once the Constitution is amended to even allow revenue to be returned to the citizens, then legislation would be put in place for the county and the school districts to then create a mechanism to return it to citizens.

Is that a correct understanding? As best as we—okay, correct. I’m not holding anybody to this.

Flynt: I think you stated it very well. Okay, except for the—we may want to clarify also that there is a way to lower the millage for all taxpayers. So when you’re saying citizens, we do that every year when we pass the millage and have lowered that every year. So you could feasibly go down. It just wouldn’t go to one group. It would go to the entire tax digest.

However, the money that we’re talking about that’s a little separate, which is like a bond premium, is not tax revenue. So let’s make sure we’re all talking about the same thing.

Dekle: The issue with the constitutional amendment is having like two different levels of taxation for homestead properties versus everyone else. Should be taxed equally. Whether there’s a provision for small amount exemptions for homestead, but it’s very limited. And so that—I mean, like you said, the money can be returned to all taxpayers, I think, by lowering the millage rate. But we can’t create two classes of taxation.

Dr. Flynt: And like you said, you could—you know, we went back and increased that amount of the homestead exemption, which you could feasibly do, but that would be assuming that the taxes remain constant over a long, long period of time, which—I mean, maybe a hundred years or whatever we’re talking about here.

So there’d be a concern if you went too high on an exemption that you wouldn’t—you wouldn’t be able to—you wouldn’t be able to afford that if something were to happen.

Teasley: Are we at risk of not being funded? Is that any of this? There’s not changes?

Flynt: No, I think the only discussion is—and it’s from just some estimates people have been talking about—I do think that it’s going to be a number of years before the tax digest moves into that zone.

But at the same time, that’s why they were able to get a premium up front, some money from Google to offset that a little bit, but our issue is there’s really no mechanism for the county to give us a portion of that money.

Teasley: Conceivably, it’s going to happen. The short term looks like is that the four commissioners, if this constitutional amendment—post constitutional amendment on the ballot November third—passes, they can return money to homestead or people with homestead exemption, right?

Flynt: I think I’ll leave that to somebody else to answer. But I mean, I would assume that is—that’s my understanding.

Casado: So, I think the issue we’re all kind of talking around is how does a school district, just like the county, target the tax [unclear] just to those properties that have a homestead exemption?

Teasley: We don’t have—we don’t have a way to do that. So, in the short term, the county will be able to do that if the… passes November 3rd.

Flynt: They need to get it. Now they need legislation to get it as a constitution—is the way I understand it.

Dekle: That’s House Bill 439, which just gives them the ability to reimburse a certain amount if they collect more than their budget, I believe, is somehow—

Teasley: Either way, they’re going to be able to give tax homeowners tax relief other than the millage, and that’s going to create a vast opportunity for misunderstanding because they’re not going to understand why we’re not doing it. They already don’t understand the difference in law for us to collect taxes, the different streams of revenue that the Board of Commissioners have that we don’t have, where our funding comes from, where theirs comes from.

Flynt: You did increase the homestead exemption… So, I mean, we’ve been making progress to that end. But yeah, I think we’ve got to figure out how we can—how we can do that. And I, you know, there’s a lot of discussion down in the buildings to have that.

Kent: Well, I’m confident that y’all are going to figure it out. My only criticism is I just wish that we would have had this conversation earlier. I feel like an earlier start might have been helpful in the last session at the State House around the time the county was meeting with the state legislature.

I think we personally missed the boat a little bit on that. I’m glad that we’re having the conversation now. Let’s see where we’re—

Allen: I do have a couple questions on the millage rate. If we lower the millage rate, that applies to data centers as well, right? So if you lower the millage rate, for every bit that you lower, to relieve property tax exemptions, you’re also reducing your data center revenue significantly. That—okay? And then if we lower the millage rate too much, we start getting into an area where we lose QBE. Is that correct as well?

Allen: Equalization, both less dollars from the state, regardless of how we label it.

So, and just to go back to what Ms. Teasley said, I think there’s a little bit of confusion again because now I’m hearing that the county has legislation that they are able to give a cent of revenue back to the people, regardless of the constitutional amendment.

Flynt: I think it’s best to let the county talk about the county and the board, but like let’s talk about what we can do.

Allen: Right. So even if we were to pass legislation, would we still need a constitutional amendment for that legislation to be effective, just like the counties? That’s our understanding. I just want to keep making this drive clear.

But now, this data center in Columbia County—they’re still in litigation due to questions about the process. Is that correct? They’re still in active litigation on the—

Flynt: I think the appellate level. Again, we’re just looking at estimates on possible—

Katie Allen: I’m just concerned if we’re getting revenue from the data centers on the front end, and then it turns out that there was a legal process issue, that these cases are ruled in favor of the plaintiff, then we potentially would be in a situation where the data centers would want that money back.

Flynt: So we’ve got a long way to go to even approve them now, so we don’t have a mechanism. So, I mean, I think we’ve got—that’s a long way before we even start approving an amount to rebate. There could be a lot of discussions before—

Allen: I thought it was coming quickly, but there was a portion of it coming imminently.

Flynt: That’s the—that’s kind of the bond [money] we were talking about over the next couple of years. The county’s getting—we even have to get a mechanism to if they wanted to give us some of that.

Allen: Is that not data center revenue?

Flynt: That’s—well, no, that would be probably termed more—and Larry, you maybe help with this—but more bond premium for the county, which they’d have to give us some of that. So it would not—it would not fall into a tax.

Allen: I guess my point, put in layman’s terms, if these lawsuits are successful, and the data centers have to go through the process from the start, or something happens that they’re not able to continue building in Columbia County, and we’re in a position where we’ve potentially already spent money given to us on the front end—let’s say, over the next six months—that was designed to be given on the front end.

In my mind, the data centers would have every right to reclaim that money and say, “Hey, that money was given under the understanding that we would be building data centers. Litigation happened. We’re not building data centers. You owe us that money back.” Is that a potential possibility?

Kent: I feel like we’re getting, like, deep in the forest. I don’t think there’s any way that the superintendent would be able to answer that question. No disrespect, but my personal opinion is there’s certain things in front of us that we have to figure out before we are concerned about that.

And the court has made decisions that point out certain things on that too. But I think there’s some higher priorities. In my humble opinion, we need to have pathways, options, is what we talk about. Something that’s kind of out of our control, and I don’t believe that the superintendent would answer that question. Not to answer for you—

Allen: But no, I would just counter that. And I hear what you’re saying, but my understanding is money coming soon from data centers, and to me, we’re in years of litigation.

But with money that’s not necessarily going to pay ours, to me, the litigation should be determined when—if the money comes, it can sit in a holding account. And then once the litigation has completed, and we know for sure certain revenue is coming, whether it’s five or seven years, at that point in the process for how the mechanism—because otherwise, what if we spend all this time and money for a data center that ends up not surpassing or surviving litigation?

Kent: Or we give back to taxpayers and try to come back and claw it back from the school system to live life completely wrong, right?

Superintendent Reports

• CCSD Retirement Reception, 9/16/2026

• CCSD Foundation Event, 9/17/2026

• CC Teacher of the Year Celebration, 10/1/2026

• End of First Nine Weeks, 10/6/2026

• Student Fall Break/District Professional Learning Day, 10/9/2026

• Columbus Day Holiday, 10/12/2026

• Report Cards, 10/14/2026

Public Participation

• Dr. Ronald Gilchrist: VFW student essay contest and teacher-recognition awards. Participation still low - Only 4 students from Lakeside & Evans have begun entries, with none from other High Schools. Student theme: What a Veteran Taught Me About America.

Executive Session

• Vote to go into executive session: Yay 5, No 0

• Vote upon exiting executive session and executing affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: 7:55 pm

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation by New Hope Worship Center Youth Pastor Dawson Cleminte

Pledge of Allegiance: Lakeside HS JROTC

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognitions:

1. Governor’s Honors Program Finalist and Alternate

   1. Greenbrier HS

      1. Lucas Bew - Electrical and Computational Physics

      2. Haydn Mangione - Communicative Arts

      3. Noah Torabi - Brass: French Horn

   2. Lakeside HS

      1. Marble Bradshaw - Science

      2. Saisurya Lakkimsetti - Science (Alternate)

      3. Darren Li - Engineering

      4. Stephen Liu - Music/Flute

      5. Anunya Madhavaranman - Social Studies

      6. Arnav Patel - Mathematics

2. Georgia BioGENEius Challenge Award

   1. Saisurya Lakkimsetti - Lakeside HS

3. GSBA Youth Advisory Council Representative

   1. Anna Claire Wall - Harlem HS

4. National Science Bowl

   1. Lakeside HS: A Team, 1st Place in State, 5th Place Nationals’ Bracket

      1. Eliana Benevides

      2. Kareem Hassan

      3. Arnav Patel

      4. David Wang

      5. Steven Zhang

5. National Beta Club - Schools of Merit & Distinction* 2025-2026

   1. Elementary Schools

      1. Baker Place

      2. *Blue Ridge

      3. Brookwood

      4. Euchee Creek

      5. Greenbrier

      6. Grovetown

      7. Lewiston

      8. North Columbia

      9. North Harlem

      10. Parkway

      11. Riverside

      12. River Ridge

      13. Stevens Creek

      14. *Westmont

   2. Middle Schools

      1. Columbia

      2. *Evans

      3. Harlem

      4. Lakeside

      5. Riverside

      6. Stallings Island

   3. High Schools

      1. Evans

      2. Greenbrier

      3. Harlem

      4. Lakeside

6. National Beta Club Competition

   1. Blue Ridge ES

      1. 1st Place: Spelling - Raghav Thumsi

      2. 6th Place: Pottery - Ward Walker

      3. 10th Place: Musicology

         1. Adelie Baker

         2. BlessingMessan

         3. Happiness Messan

         4. Ward Walker

   2. Stevens Creek ES

      1. 1st Place: Social Studies Academic Competition - Vivek Raval

      2. 4th Place: Elementary Reimagine, Recreate, and Recreate Team Exhibition

         1. Navtej Farmaha

         2. Avni Makhija

         3. Ayan Patel

         4. Vivek Patel

         5. Vihaan Shah

7. National Beta Club Convention

   1. 2nd Place mathematics - Krish Patel, Lakeside HS

8. National Civics Bee Competition

   1. Columbia MS: Charlotte Anderson

   2. Harlem MS: Hannah Leatherwood

Board Comments:

• Katie Allen (D4): Praised the students’ academic and intellectual achievements across science, engineering, math, civics, Beta Club and other areas. Thanked parents, teachers, administrators and district staff for supporting them. She also thanked the pastor for the invocation and said, “we’ve got to start with Jesus Christ if we want to go somewhere strong.”

• Philip Kent (D1): Thanked the pastor and referenced the Holy Spirit in the invocation. Praised the students’ abilities but emphasized that talented students still need strong teachers to guide them toward success, and recognized the district’s teachers for their role in the students’ achievements.

• Judy Teasley (D3): Said the district’s success comes from a combination of talented students, good teachers and supportive parents. Thanked the pastor for emphasizing gratitude and described the district as blessed to have all the necessary “ingredients” working together.

• Kristi Baker (D2): Thanked the pastor for the invocation and said prayers from him and the community are appreciated. She noted that although board members may appear calm during meetings, they can be nervous because of the weight of their decisions and said they continue thinking and planning about district matters outside of meetings. She otherwise agreed with the preceding comments.

• David Dekle (Chair): Focused primarily on the National Beta Convention, which he attended in Nashville with his wife. He praised Columbia County students’ performance and especially recognized the parents for the substantial work involved in getting elementary students to the national competition. He said seeing younger students alongside successful high-school students showed the district’s future potential and said student recognitions remind the board of its purpose and mission.

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

1. 8/11/2026 Regular Session Meeting Minutes

2. June and July financials

3. Fundraisers

4. Employee Travel

5. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Request

6. Lease/Use of Facilities

Discussion Topics and Presentations

Strategic Planning

1. Vision and Mission

   1. Vision: The Columbia County School District will lead the nation in educational excellence where each student is engaged, enriched, and inspired.

   2. Mission: The Columbia County School District will provide each student challenging content in a supportive environment resulting in increased academic achievement through shared accountability.

2. Goal Areas and Related Performance Objectives

   1. Maximum Achievement and Success for Each Student (Leanne Gregg)

      1. Understanding & Mastery of Curriculum

         District continue refining K–12 instructional guides, add exemplar teacher videos, improve assessments/semester exams, and use writing-assessment data to improve instruction. Plans include Next Gen Science resources, expanded K–12 robotics, an 8th-grade career exploration experience, standardized science labs, professional development, and additional IEP/specially designed instruction support.

      2. Increase instructional rigor

         Expand CTE offerings, including the new construction/heavy-equipment operator pathway; increase industry certifications, internships in high-skill/high-wage/high-demand fields, gifted instructional units, and middle-school outreach about CTE and fine arts. District also plans to identify and integrate “vetted and trusted” AI resources. Staff identified Gemini for students through the Google environment and Microsoft Copilot primarily for staff.

         Discussion

         Allen: Asked what the district meant by “vetted and trusted” AI resources and how students would use them.

         Gregg: District’s two vetted AI resources are Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. Gemini is available to students through the district’s Google environment; Copilot is primarily used by teachers/staff.

         Allen: Asked whether student activity and information stored through Google Workspace, including student papers, notes and other activity, could be collected or used to train or improve AI systems.

         VanMeter: No.

         Allen: Asked whether other district software programs contain AI features.

         Staff: Said some curriculum software includes AI features. Galileo was specifically discussed, but whether its AI functionality is being used was not clearly established.

      3. Enhance academic supports

         New credit-recovery platform; expanded elementary and middle-school math interventions; EL teacher training; school-based special-ed department chairs; expanded co-teaching; individual college/career plans; use PSAT 8/9 data to identify students for AP; SAT/ACT prep with student incentives; and expanded virtual instruction through CVA for alternative-school students.

   2. Community Engagement & Support (Alex Casado)

      1. Maximize family/community involvement

         Continue developing the Columbia County School District Foundation and expanding community partners/trustees.

      2. Expand meaningful business & post secondary partnerships

         Increase internships where students use CTE certifications, high-skill/high-wage fields. Partnerships include AU dual enrollment and teacher leadership certification and Augusta Tech programs. Augusta Tech partnership will allow students to earn three course credits toward a basic heavy-equipment operator technical certificate of credit.

         Discussion

         Teasley: Asked for clarification about the Augusta University Tier I and Tier II leadership certification courses.

         Casado: Confirmed the partnership will provide leadership certification coursework through Augusta University, with district personnel teaching courses using AU resources.

      3. Improve internal/external communications

         District will explore replacing/updating its website to make it more user-friendly. The annual communications campaign is “The Promise.” District will also continue refining the new mass-communications platform piloted last year.

   3. Consistent & Supportive Culture (Steven Cummings)

      1. Ensure Safe Learning Environment

         Alert systems continue to be installed/implemented. All schools completed first intruder drill of the year and Student Behavior Threat Assessment training. Staff are monitoring locked doors and use of employee alert badges.

         Discussion

         Allen: Asked what information is being collected through the district’s school-safety monitoring tools and whether the district uses facial-recognition technology.

         Jackson: Said administrators and SROs use a mobile application to document safety and facility conditions, currently focusing on locked doors and employee alert badges. It can also document maintenance and other hazards.

         Allen: Asked what student data are collected and whether facial recognition is used.

         Jackson: Said the district is not using facial recognition through the system and is primarily collecting facility and employee-compliance information rather than student data. SROs may photograph hazards, such as an open door, but staff said they do not photograph students or teachers for this purpose.

         Kent: Asked whether the district has considered expanding camera technology to provide additional documentation when disciplinary incidents or disputes involving teachers, students or parents occur.

         Jackson: No clear commitment to expand cameras for that purpose was made during the discussion.

      2. Nurture Strong Relationships in Supportive Environment

         District implementing ACEs across schools to strengthen connections between students and trusted adults. Staff are receiving district-approved de-escalation training.

      3. Support the Overall Health of Students

         In response to HB 268, district will provide one hour of evidence-based suicide-awareness/prevention training and one hour of youth-violence-prevention training. It is expanding its 24-hour anonymous reporting system and providing counselors/families with additional resources.

         Discussion

         Allen: Asked about district procedures for parental notification when students speak with school counselors, distinguishing ordinary counseling from mental-health counseling.

         Dr. Campbell: Said parental permission is not required for ordinary counseling conversations, such as a student discussing friendships or having a difficult day. Parents are involved when mental-health or safety concerns reach a level involving potential harm. Said counseling procedures are addressed in the district’s counseling handbook.

         Allen: Asked where families can find counseling and community resources.

         Campbell: Said resources are available through school websites under community resources.

         Allen: Asked about staff training materials and whether the district is considering suicide-prevention programs other than Signs of Suicide (SOS).

         Jackson: Said Georgia recently identified three approved programs, including SOS. The district has not vetted the other two and currently plans to continue using SOS.

         Allen: Asked for the names of the other two state-approved programs.

         Jackson: Said they would provide them.

   4. Facilities & Operational Processes & Systems (Penny Jackson)

      1. Improve Operational Processes & Systems

         Improve custodial hiring/training; continue implementing transportation routing and camera systems; implement standardized school inspection checklists covering cleanliness, maintenance and safety.

      2. Identify & Plan for upcoming facility needs

         Continue maintaining the comprehensive building program and security/alert-management systems.

      3. Improve Technology Access (James VanMeter)

         Planned infrastructure refreshes rather than waiting for equipment failure; E-rate funding; wireless heat mapping; increased network capacity; disaster-recovery/business-continuity testing; and device-management measures aimed at a “distraction-free” learning environment.

         Discussion

         Kent: Asked what the district’s next major technology replacement will be and whether it is adequately budgeted.

         VanMeter: Said a roughly $2.7 million edge-switch upgrade is scheduled to begin in mid-to-late September. Said the district plans and budgets for infrastructure upgrades and competitively procures equipment while maintaining compatibility across network systems.

         Dekle: Asked about the status of replacing security cameras throughout the district.

         VanMeter: Said the district has approximately 1,600 cameras and replacement is proceeding. Some older equipment remains but is isolated so its traffic cannot leave the district network. Video storage servers/NVRs are also being replaced.

   5. Talent Optimization (Tony Wright)

      1. Attract a highly-qualified staff

         District wants to become more data-driven about which teacher-preparation programs and recruitment pipelines produce successful employees. Recruitment will expand beyond traditional education majors to undecided college students, career changers, paraprofessionals and the district's own students.

         Kent: Asked what the district is doing differently or “outside the box” to attract new employees.

         Wright: Said the district is expanding its geographic reach for some specialized positions and using internships as a recruitment pipeline, but emphasized culture, working environment, relationships, competitive salaries and communicating the district’s strengths as the primary recruitment tools.

      2. Provide professional growth opportunities & development for all employees

         District wants to become more data-driven about which teacher-preparation programs and recruitment pipelines produce successful employees. Recruitment will expand beyond traditional education majors to undecided college students, career changers, paraprofessionals and the district's own students.

      3. Retain a highly-effective workforce

         Continue reviewing compensation for market competitiveness/internal equity and better communicate total compensation, including insurance and leave. District also wants to improve retirement planning/support.

         Discussion

         Dekle: Asked how Georgia legislation allowing retired educators to return to work in high-need areas is affecting district staffing.

         Wright: Estimated approximately 3–5 fully retired educators have returned to full-time work, with additional retirees working part-time. Said current targeted areas include math and science.

         Dekle: Asked how salaries are handled when an experienced retiree and a newer teacher are candidates for the same position.

         Wright: Said principals select the best candidate and returning retirees are placed at the salary level they would have reached had they continued working. District does not pay the employee’s portion of TRS for those retirees. Said the district is also looking for ways to encourage experienced employees to remain beyond 30 years.

         Teasley: Asked whether the district offers flexible or part-time arrangements for experienced teachers who want to return but do not want a full schedule.

         Wright: Said flexibility depends on the position. Specialized positions such as speech-language services are more conducive to fractional positions than general classroom teaching.

         Teasley: Asked about telehealth and mental-health resources for employees.

         Wright: Said mental-health assistance is available through the district’s EAP and more employees are using it, although availability of providers accepting new clients remains a problem.

         Kent: Asked what the district is specifically doing to eliminate workplace barriers that cause teachers to leave.

         Wright: Said retention is strong and the most common reason employees leave is retirement, followed by spouse relocation/moves. HR follows up with employees reporting negative experiences through exit evaluations and works with departments to address problems that can be corrected.

         Allen: Asked whether the district’s annual Gallup employee survey includes comments and whether results are analyzed over multiple years to identify improving or declining trends.

         Wright: Said the standard Gallup survey consists of 12 questions used consistently from year to year. Schools and leaders receive their results and can track them over time and identify particular areas for improvement.

         Allen: Asked whether the district similarly compiles exit-survey data to identify multi-year trends in why employees leave.

         Wright: Said responses can be difficult to categorize and the district receives responses from roughly half of employees surveyed. Staff look for patterns, including recurring problems at particular locations, and follow up on concerns.

         Kent: Asked whether the district has considered making participation in the Gallup survey mandatory.

         Wright: Said employees are strongly encouraged to participate and characterized district employee-engagement results as strong.

3. Next Five-Year Strategic Plan

   District will spend the remainder of 2026 developing process for revising the strategic plan. Beginning January 2027, district plans to solicit input from teachers, staff, students, parents, community members and the Board, along with professional organizations and educational experts. Regular updates are planned during the second semester, with a revised five-year strategic plan expected to be presented to the Board in summer 2027, tentatively July.

Staff Reports

1. 2027-2028 School Calendar - Option A retained majority votes from stakeholders. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

   

   

2. Nuclear Science Week (Dr. Campbell)

   1. October 19-23

      Discussion

      Teasley: Clarified that Nuclear Science Week does not require teachers to add activities, change the curriculum or attend additional meetings.

      Campbell: Said nuclear-science material discussed already part of the curriculum and the recognition week does not add new curriculum requirements.

      Allen: Asked what students would be taught under Nuclear Science Week themes including “carbon-free energy” and “global leadership,” expressing concern that some themes could become politically charged.

      Campbell: Said those are themes identified by the Nuclear Science Week organization and are not automatically being adopted by the district. Any materials incorporated into instruction would go through the district’s review process.

      Allen: Said she supports teaching nuclear energy but wanted assurance that the district was not endorsing outside positions simply because they were included among the organization’s themes.

      Campbell: Confirmed that inclusion in Nuclear Science Week’s materials does not mean the district automatically endorses or incorporates them.

Building Program Bids:

1. Furniture for Evans HS (Cost: $269,479.34). Approve: Yay 5, No 0

   

   Discussion

   Allen: Asked whether the additional $269,479 purchase is included within the approximately $1.8 million budget for furniture and equipment at Evans High School or represents spending beyond that amount.

   Casado: Said the purchase is included within the overall Evans High School project budget. “Additional” refers to purchasing furniture for additional/new spaces, not increasing the project’s budget.

   Kent: Asked why the district is continuing to use pricing from the January 2025 bid rather than bidding the furniture again.

   Casado: Said district bids can include provisions allowing future purchases at the approved price as long as the vendor agrees to continue honoring it. Georgia Specialty Equipment is still honoring its January 2025 pricing. Rebidding could result in higher current prices and could also create inconsistencies in furniture makes/models already purchased for the school. Said the district generally allows such pricing arrangements for no more than three years.

2. FMO Vans (Cost per van: $51,435, Total cost: $205,740). Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Discussion

Teasley: Asked whether Akins Ford was the closest dealership offering the best price and whether a local dealership could match the pricing.

Casado: Said the state contract includes approved dealerships throughout Georgia. District staff reviewed dealerships on the contract; a geographically closer dealer did not have the vehicles available and would have required a significant wait. Akins Ford was the closest dealership with reasonable availability and offered the largest discount among the state-contract dealers contacted.

Allen: Asked for the funding source.

Casado: Said the vans are budgeted in the General Fund under FMO. Vehicle needs are included during the budget process based on fleet replacement needs and new positions requiring service vehicles.

Superintendent Reports:

• 9/3/2026 Lakeside HS Ribbon Cutting 5:30 pm

• 9/3/2026, Progress Reports

• 9/4/2026, Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences

• 9/7/2026, Labor Day

• 9/16/2026, CCSD Retiremnt Reception

• 9/17/2026, CCSD Annual Foundation Event

• 10/1/2026, Columbia County Teacher of the Year Celebration

• 10/6/2026, End of First Nine Weks

• 10/9/2026, Fall Break/ District Professional Learning Day

• 10/12/2026, Columbus Day

• 10/14/2026, Report Cards

Executive Session:

• Approval of affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn at 8:30 pm : Yay 5, No 0

Next meeting regular session: 9/8/2026

Board Members Present: Chairman David Dekle, D1 Philip Kent, D2 Kristi Baker, D3 Judy Teasley, D4 Katie Allen

Call To Order: 5:30pm

Special Recognitions

• Georgia High School Association

  • GHSA 5A Golf State Champions

    • Hamilton Coleman

    • Charles Elsken

    • Brighton Glodava

    • Cooper Hawkins

    • Andrew Higgins

    • Tabb Hinson

    • Qasim Khan

    • Kipp Madison

    • Grant Murray

    • Tyler Newsome

    • Sam Rogers

    • Jacob Weaver

    • Bennett Wiggins

  • GHSA 5A Girls Golf State Championship, 3rd Place, Greenbrier High School

    • Gabriella Burkett

    • Jaclyn Cressend

    • Shane Daly

    • Khera H Khera

    • Adyson Lukich

    • Madelyn Silarek

    • Avery Simpson

    • Benton Vineyard

  • GHSA 5A Girls Soccer State Champions, Greenbrier High School

    • Peyton Anderson

    • Analaura Boone

    • Arianna Boone

    • Darcy Bridwll

    • Sophie Campanaro

    • Mackenzie Canady

    • Nora Dye

    • Belle Gantt

    • Krista Gillies

    • Molly Grover

    • Talashia Harris

    • Madelyn Heckathorn

    • Addison Jernigan

    • Maura Jobes

    • Murphy Larkin

    • Kate McDonald

    • Kinley Mitchell

    • Sadie Oldham

    • Mamie Cate Pangle

    • Stephanie Schroeder

    • Aaliyah Silver

    • AdelinaStrupp

    • Aubrey Strupp

    • Alayna Tamez

    • Sarah Wahl

    • Sophie Witt

  • GHSA 5A Girls Tennis State Runner-Up, Lakeside High School

    • Victoria Bishop

    • Emily Bull

    • Elise Clemente

    • Charley Fair

    • Marlea Griffis

    • Genevieve Handel

    • Madeline Jackson

    • Hannah Liebel

    • Georgia Manolakis

    • Savanna Mills

    • Manasvi Patel

    • Siya Patel

    • Katherine Peterson

    • Lauren Smith

    • Connor Trammell

• National Grant for Summer Fellowship

  • Crystal McDowell, Greenbrier High School

Special Recommendation

• Director of Talent Development, HR: Dr. Kenneth L Johnson

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

1. 7/21/2026 Regular Session Meeting Minutes

2. Fundraisers

3. Employee Travel

4. Program/Camp/Employe Participation Requests

5. Lease/Use of Facilities

Board Policies: Approval of items b-e: Yay 5, No 0

a. Board Policy EBB, Safety

b. Board Policy GARJ, Employee Retirement

c. Board Policy IH, Student Achievement

d. Board Policy JB, Student Attendance

e. Board Policy KG, Use of School Facilities

Dr. Flynt pulled item “a” off the list because staff still has some changes they want to make. Recommended approval of policies b-e.

Allen: What was the reason for the changes in item “b” Board Policy GARJ?

Flynt: This was changing the wording from TRS. This reflects some legislative changes as well. Some items were pulled off and moved to procedure. The law was effective 7/1/2026.

Adoption of the 2026 Tax Digest Millage Rate to the rollback rate of 14.997. Approval Yay 5, No 0

Human Resources Staffing Update, Tony Wright

• 2,207 of 2,215 certified positions filled, a 99.6% fill rate.

• Fewer than 10 certified vacancies, primarily in ASD and interrelated special education positions.

• Demand for specialized positions increased by about 14%, or 42 additional positions, over last school year.

• Non-certified positions: 1,580 of 1,600 positions are filled, a 98.7% fill rate.

• Current recruiting priorities: 8 special ed para vacancies and 11 combined maintenance technician, HVAC technician and custodial vacancies.

• Current vacancies not affecting student achievement and coverage plans are in place.

• New teacher orientation and mentoring program, custodial training center, additional training days for special ed paras, district leadership academies, Augusta University’s first speech-language pathology cohort graduating December, the CTAE teacher apprenticeship pathway, and continued work on weighted staffing and a new HR information system.

Discussion

Allen: Asked about para staffing and referenced prior information suggesting the district lost about 80/ year.

Wright: Said losing 80 paraprofessionals annually would be a significant problem and estimated turnover among special education paras at under 20% per year. Said the district has roughly 78–90 ASD-specific paraprofessional positions and another 50–60 interrelated paraprofessional positions.

Proposed School Calendar Options for 2027-2028, Penny Jackson

• School Calendar Advisory Team: parents, teachers, administrators and district personnel, began in May.

• Each option has180 instructional days and incorporates required teacher workdays/professional development days, holidays, seasonal breaks and at least one early-release day per semester for parent conferences.

• The district continues its practice of ending first semester before winter break and second semester before Memorial Day.

• Calendar survey opens Aug. 12 and closes Aug. 21. District employees will receive the survey by email, and a link will be posted on the district website for public feedback.

• Survey results and the preferred calendar option will be presented at the next board meeting for approval.

• Graduation dates/venue remain TBD, which could affect the end-of-year schedule. One option would end school earlier but could require staff to return after post-planning for graduation.

Advanced Placement Update for 2026, Dr. Campbell

• 30+ AP courses across its five high schools.

• Since 2021, the number of AP exams administered has increased 59%, from 3,298 to 5,242.

• District’s AP exam pass rate increased from 55% to 81%, the first time the district has exceeded an 80% pass rate.

• Newer AP offerings include AP Business with Personal Finance, AP Cybersecurity and AP Cyber Networking.

• Evans High School: Highest 3-year increase in percentage of AP exams earning a 3 or higher; increased 13 percentage points to 83%.

• Harlem High School: Highest 3-year increase in total AP exams; increased 27%.

• Greenbrier High School: Highest percentage of AP exams earning a 3 or higher (90%) and highest AP participation, with 40% of students taking at least one AP exam.

• Grovetown High School: Highest 1-year increase in percentage of AP exams earning a 3 or higher; increased 6 percentage points to 82%.

• Lakeside High School: Highest one-year increase in total AP exams; increased 20% to 1,518 exams.

• 51% increase in dual-enrollment participation over the past 3 years, while AP participation has also continued to grow.

• AP English and AP U.S. History are most popular AP courses. AP Psychology and AP Government more approachable entry points for students who may be hesitant about AP.

• Uses PSAT 8/9 results and College Board’s AP Potential reports to identify students who may be capable of succeeding in AP courses.

Junior Achievement Dream Accelerator, Dr. Campbell

Dr. Campbell:

• District developing framework to help every student graduate with a defined post-graduation pathway.

• Framework supports Georgia’s Top State for Talent Act (HB 192). Includes career-interest inventories, aptitude assessments and individual college and career plans beginning in middle school.

• Brand pathway initiative “What is Your E Plan?” 3 broad post-graduation options: Enroll, Employ or Enlist.

• Students begin developing an Individual College and Career Plan (ICCP) in sixth grade, with parents able to access plan through parent portal. In HS, district would refer to the plan as the student’s E Plan.

• Already uses Junior Achievement programming, career-interest surveys, YouScience aptitude assessments, pathway fairs, the College and Career Expo and work-based learning opportunities.

• Proposed Dream Accelerator would be incorporated in 8th and 10th grades to provide immersive career exploration experience. Help students develop and revise plans.

• Students receive report with career interests and goals, shared with teachers and counselors and incorporated into ongoing college/career plan.

• Dream Accelerator installed in approximately 3,200 square feet of currently unused space adjacent to the existing JA Discovery Center.

• District would contribute up to $1.3 million from the 2026–27 curriculum and instruction budget. Junior Achievement funding partners would contribute approximately $700,000, for an estimated total project cost of $2 million.

• No district wide textbook adoption scheduled this year, leaving curriculum and instruction funding available for project.

• Program serve approximately 5,000 8th and 10th grade students each year.

John Hancock – Junior Achievement of Georgia

• Junior Achievement’s focus career exploration, entrepreneurship, financial literacy and workforce readiness, with an emphasis on experiential learning.

• Dream Accelerator complements existing programs at Discovery Center.

• Unlike many JA programs designed for a single grade level, Dream Accelerator can be used at multiple grade levels, allowing students to revisit career planning as they progress through school.

• Program includes classroom prep followed by an approximately two-hour interactive experience.

• Students move through stations focused on personal strengths, career exploration, lifestyle costs, entrepreneurship, visualization and SMART goals.

• Program intended to help students explore possibilities rather than assign them to a particular career path.

• JA responsible for ongoing technology support, with program content generally refreshed on a 3-year cycle.

Discussion

Allen: Raised concerns about operations, finances and potential conflicts. Noted previous difficulty recruiting volunteers for the existing JA Discovery Center and questioned adding another program requiring additional volunteers.

Hancock: Said 6 volunteers would be ideal, but program could operate with approximately 3 because interactive individual stations.

Allen: Questioned spending up to $1.3 million after the district transferred $20 million from the general fund to the building program, and adopted a budget using approximately $40 million in general fund balance. Said didn’t believe this was appropriate year for the expenditure. Raised concerns about Dr. Flynt serving on the Junior Achievement board while district considers another major investment with JA. Asked when he joined the board.

Hancock: Said Flynt joined the JA board in September 2025.

Allen: Asked for participation data from the existing Discovery Center, costs and volunteer requirements from other Dream Accelerator programs, and evidence of measurable student outcomes from both Dream Accelerator and the district’s existing JA programs.

Kent: Said he supports concept but shared Allen’s financial concerns. Said board’s aggressive building program limits its ability to take on additional spending and that he could not support project this year.

Dekle: Supported the expenditure, arguing that $1.3 million in curriculum and instruction funding would serve approximately 5,000 students per year. Compared the cost with textbook adoptions of $2–$4 million and said the program could serve approximately 35,000 students over 7 years.

Allen: Asked if district could wait a month to obtain additional information before making a decision.

Teasley: Said students who have a goal are more likely to graduate, even if they ultimately change goal. Pointed to the district’s approximately 92–93% graduation rate.

Allen: Said evidence that Dream Accelerator could produce even a 2–3% increase in graduation rates would strengthen the case for the program, but reiterated that she wanted supporting data before approving it.

Allen: Moved to table the proposal until the board received additional information. Yay 2 (Allen & Kent), No 3.

Baker: Asked what information was available from Clayton County and how widely Dream Accelerator had been implemented.

Hancock: Said Dream Accelerator originated with JA in Denver and had been replicated three times. Clayton County’s program opened in February, so long-term data are not yet available. Said JA has some info on teacher satisfaction, student experience and alignment with school strategies, but isolating the program’s effect on long-term student outcomes is difficult.

Allen: Asked whether JA had data showing how often students ultimately enter the careers they identified through Dream Accelerator.

Hancock: Said that data do not yet exist because the program is relatively new and reiterated that the goal is career exploration rather than assigning students to a specific career.

Allen: Asked how Dream Accelerator fundamentally differs from the career-interest and aptitude surveys students already take.

Campbell: Said the primary difference is the interactive experience. Students connect interests with possible careers, examine salaries and lifestyle costs, set goals and take those results back to teachers and counselors for continued planning.

Allen: Asked whether the program accounts for AI’s potential impact on careers over the next five to ten years.

Hancock: Said he did not have a specific answer but agreed it was an important consideration and said JA could examine it further.

Kent: Asked whether the district’s $1.3 million share was a realistic estimate and whether the final cost could be lower.

Hancock: Said the approximately $2 million total project cost was likely accurate within about 5–8%. He said JA would also seek philanthropic contributions, which could proportionally reduce the amount paid by both JA and the district.

Dekle: I make a motion that we approve up to $1.3 million out of the curriculum instruction budget to partner with Junior Achievement to develop a Dream Accelerator in Columbia County. Yay 3, No 2 (Allen and Kent)

Contract for Services CSRA RESA: Yay 5, No 0

Basic Membership $106,324

Vision Education $ 30,754

Orientation & Mobility $ 41,672

Total Contract $178,750

Superintendent Reports

• Progress Reports, September 3

• Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences, September 4

• Labor Day Holiday, September 7

• Columbia County School District Retirement Reception, September 16

• Columbia County Teacher of the Year Celebration, October 1

• End of First Nine Weeks, October 6

• Student Fall Break/District Professional Learning Day, October 9

• Columbus Day Holiday, October 12

• Report Cards, October 14

Public Participation:

• None

Executive Session: Yay 5, No 0

• Affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Executive Session Procedures:

• Motion to table executive session procedures: Yay 4, No 1 (Allen)

Adjourn: 8:25 pm

In attendance: Chairman David Dekle, Vice Chair (D1) Philip Kent, D2 Kristi Baker, D3 Judy Teasley, D4 Katie Allen, Superintendent Steven Flynt

Call To Order: 5:30pm

Invocation: Trinity Baptist Church Family Life Pastor TJ Custer

Pledge of Allegiance: Grovetown HS JROTC

Approval of Agenda:

(Not transcripted)

Dekle: There are 2 items that were inadvertently left off the agenda, and asked to amend the agenda to include:

• The schedule for board members training, which was included in board packet

• Bid results regarding special education outsourcing of teachers.

(After a motion and second))

Allen: What item numbers will those be now?

Dekle: We’ll make the training schedule Consent Item H, and we’ll make the bid results item 11.1, immediate following the CTAE presentation. Is that OK?

Allen: And just for clarification, those are training hours only. That’s not….

Dekle: Yes. It’s the sheet that was in your packet.

Allen: And we’re approving the training hours only, correct?

Dekle: Yes, as presented in the training packet.

Amend Agenda Vote: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognition:

a. Country Music Award Foundation Top Music Educator in the Nation

Melissa Blizzard of Stevens Creek Elementary School

Special Recommendation:

a. Rodney Holder, Assistant Principal Harlem High School

Board Comments: Board members thanked the pastor for the invocation, congratulated music teacher Melissa Blizzard on receiving a national CMA Foundation Music Teacher Award, and praised her commitment to her students. They also congratulated Rodney Holder on his promotion to assistant principal at Harlem HS, highlighting his nearly 29 years of service and leadership in the district. Several board members thanked the Grovetown HS JROTC cadets for lading the Pledge of Allegiance, praised district staff for their work preparing for the upcoming school year, and expressed confidence that CCSD would have another successful year.

Flynt: One more agenda item to add as item 7.1. Vote to submit application for Exemplary School Board to Georgia School Board Association. Yay 5, No 0

Exemplary Board Application: Yay 4, No, 0 Abstain 1 (Allen)

Flynt: Deadline falls before the next board meeting. GSBA offers 3 levels of recognition based on board governance and other criteria, and Columbia County routinely applies each year.

Allen: Questioned whether the board should seek the designation, saying she believed there were still areas where the board needed improvement and that she had previously emailed concerns about governance. She hadn’t been provided the evaluation rubric or enough information to make an informed decision.

Kent: Believes the board is moving in a positive direction, citing more open discussion and transparency. Acknowledge he wasn’t familiar with GSBA scoring criteria.

Teasley: Stakeholder feedback gathered as part of the application process had been positive, and the district applies for the recognition annually.

Consent Agenda:

a. Minutes of 6/16/2026 Regular Session Meeting, and Minutes of 7/14/2026 Special Called Meeting.

b. May Financials

c. Budget Amendment and Transfers

d. Fundraisers

e. Employee Travel

f. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

g. Lease/Use of Facilities

h. Schedule for board member training

Allen: Asked to remove 6/16/2026 Meeting Minutes.

Motion to approve consent items b-h and the 7/14/2026 Special Called Meeting Minutes: Yay 5, No 0

Allen: Asked to amend the 6/16/2026 meeting minutes to state that she removed herself from part of the executive session before later abstaining from the affidavit vote. Yay 5, No 0

Board Policies (revisions to be voted on at next meeting) (To view Board Policies, check here: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Policy/PolicyListing.aspx?S=36031361&ptid=amIgTZiB9plushNjl6WXhfiOQ== . Scroll down on the left-hand menu to see “Pending for Public Comment.” This will list the board policies that are currently accepting public comments.)

a. Board Policy KG, Use of School Facilities

b. Board Policy EBB, Safety: Adding state mandated Behavior Threat Assessment guidelines/protocols, safety training for subs. Each school will have behavioral threat assessment team that valuates reported threats under state guidelines, documents serious cases in Infinite Campus and coordinates with school resource officers.

c. Board Policy GARJ, Employee Retirement: Revising Return to work language for retirees to comply with TRS requirements.

d. Board Policy IH, Student Achievement: Modifying that middle school students may qualify for example exemptions

e. Board Policy JB, Student Attendance: Implementing new kindergarten and first-grade readiness requirements. State requirements to assess students for first grade readiness if they did not attend public Kindergarten.

Graduation Ceremonies for 2027

• Ceremonies will continue to be held at Evans Towne Center Park with the Columbia County Performing Arts Centers reserved as indoor backup in case of inclement weather

• Augusta Arena as alternate venue discussed but no guarantee it will be finished in time, but may be a viable option for 2028.

Career, Technical and Agricultural Education Pathway Update

• Addition of Heavy Equipment Operator Pathway

Bid Result for SPED Teacher Augumentation. Approved with Restriction (see notes): Yay 5, No 0

Flynt: District issued request for proposals to ore than 10 vendors and received 29 responses. Based on cost, staffing availability, response time, Georgia experience and references, administrators recommended Blazer works.

Wright (HR): District currently anticipating needing 8-10 teachers and described the contract as a backup staffing option to fill vacancies more quickly than the district could hire on its own. He said contracted teachers would met thee district’s certification requirements and could be hired for varying lengths of time depending on need.

Allen: Questioned whether proposal was connected to a separate procurement involving the possible outsourcing of paraprofessionals. Allen said she reviewed an open procurement document referencing staffing services and believed there was overlap in the language. Sh argued that the board previously discussed studying the outsourcing concept further and that she had no received enough documentation to determine if the 2 procurement were related.

Wright: Repeatedly stated that the bid contract before the board did not involve outsourcing paraprofessionals and was limited to temporary professional staffing for positions such as special education teachers, occupational therapists and other specialized personnel. Wright said the district had no intention of outsourcing its paraprofessional Workforce and explained the proposal simply established a contract that could be used when vacancies arose.

Baker: Asked whether contracted employees would remain for the entire school year and if district could request other specialized provides if needed.

Wright: Compared to arrangement to traveling healthcare professionals, explaining that the staffing company maintains a large network of qualified personnel who can be placed more quickly than traditional hiring. Expressed concern that if they didn’t follow through with contract, there would be SPED teacher vacancies on the first day of school.

Dekle: Proposed adding a restriction that the contract could not be used to fill paraprofessional positions without returning to the board for approval.

The motion was made and voted on.

Bid for Heavy Equipment Operator Simulator for CTAE. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Ratification of the Greenbrier HS CMAR bid award. Yay 5, No 0

• Formally ratified it’s 7/14/2026 decision rescinding award to Carroll Daniel Construction and awarding contract to McKnight Construction.

• Allen asked whether Turner & Townsend’s representative would be present to answer additional questions about scoring calculations.

• Dekle state he wanted the superintendent to review the district’s program management process and provide recommendations going forward

Superintendents Report:

• Rising 6th Grade Camp, July 23

• New Teacher Induction, July 23, 24 and 27

• Open House Dates for 2026-2027 SY

  • HS: July 29

  • MS: July 30

  • ES: July 30

• Teacher Pre-Planning, July 28-31 & August 3

• Rising 9th Grade Camp, July 30 and August 1

• First Day of School, August 4

• Progress Reports, September 3

• Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences, September 4

*All Parents* Don’t forget! Online Student Registration is still ongoing. Contact the district if you didn’t get your back to school magazine in the mail.

Public Participation:

• Jessica Fisher: Praised the board for tentatively lowering the millage rate to the rollback rate. Discouraged the board from outsourcing staff due to quality concerns.

• Taylor Schwarzkopf: Concerns about culture of intolerance and non-acceptance of students with special needs throughout district.

Executive Session: 7:15-7:23pm

Affidavit executed: Yay 5, No 0

Personnel sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn 7:25pm

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Tax Digest Millage Rate Presentation (I will link the full presentation when it gets uploaded to the district website tomorrow morning.)

CFO Alex Casado:

• One mill is now worth approximately $9.2 million in property tax revenue.

• The Tax Commissioner’s office calculated the rollback rate at 14.997 mills, an 8.25% reduction from the current 16.234 mills.

• Even with the full rollback, the district would still collect about $305,000 more than last year because of growth in the tax digest.

• The FY2027 budget assumed approximately a 3% increase in property tax revenue, which would be met with a rate of roughly 15.524 mills.

• Casado estimated that adopting the full rollback would reduce expected revenue by about $4.7 million compared with the adopted budget, leaving the district with an estimated 19% fund balance, above the Board’s 15% policy minimum.

• If the Board adopted the full rollback, no additional tax increase hearings would be required.

Board Discussion:

Chairman Dekle - Preferred tentatively adopted a rate above the rollback rate so that they could hold public hearings and receive additional public input, before making a full decision.

Katie Allen made a motion to tentatively adopt the full rollback rate of 14.997 mills, and Philip Kent seconded the motion. Yay: 3 (Teasley, Allen, Kent) No: (Dekle, Baker)

Allen: Last year we adopted the full rollback rate and still collected approximately $2.7 million more in property tax revenue because of growth in the tax digest.

Casado: If we have growth in the digest which outweighs exemption applications, then the revenue will grow.

Allen: Why would we come to taxpayers for more money when we just transferred $20 million from the General Fund to the Building Fund? Adopting the full rollback would require roughly another $4.7 million to come from the General Fund, and the General Fund is large enough to absorb that.

Casado: This would move the General Fund from about 20% of operating expenses to 19%. According to the board’s rules, we can’t go below 15% but 19-20% is a healthy fund balance level.

Baker: What do we use the General Fund for?

Casado: You can think of it as the savings account. There is some lag between now and when we collect property taxes, when we draw down the General Fund. The balance tends to increase/decrease in waves with revenues.

Because the Board tentatively adopted the rollback rate, the district will not be required to hold the three public hearings that would have been necessary if a higher millage rate had been proposed.

Executive Session

Following executive session, Chairman David Dekle made a statement that after the June 16 meeting, a contractor had objected to the scoring used to select the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) for the Greenbrier High School additions and renovations. An investigation determined that the district's outside program manager, Turner & Townsend, had used a different scoring methodology than the one previously used for the Harlem High School CMAR selection. Had the correct methodology been used, McKnight Construction would have received the highest score instead of Carroll Daniel Construction.

Katie Allen raised a point of order, noting the issue was not on the published agenda. Judy Teasley then moved to amend the agenda to add the item.

Allen: The affected contractors have not been notified and she questioned the need to take action tonight rather than waiting until the regularly scheduled meeting next week. She also noted that discussion on amending the agenda should occur before a vote under Robert’s Rules of Order. Chairman Dekle paused the meeting, confirmed that a motion to amend the agenda is debatable, and allowed discussion before the Board voted.

The Board voted 4-1 to amend the agenda, with Allen opposed.

Beatty: Turner & Townsend discovered the scoring error after the June 16 meeting and reported it to district staff. The corrected calculations showed McKnight Construction should have received the award and, in response to a question from Kent, said additional review of the scoring process would likely help prevent similar errors in the future..

Allen requested copies of the scoring matrices for the Harlem, Greenbrier, Evans, and Lakeside projects.

The Board then voted 5-0 to rescind the award to Carroll Daniel Construction and award the Greenbrier High School CMAR contract to McKnight Construction.

Adjourn: Yay 5, No 0

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: Christ Church Presbyterian, Associate Pastor Ryan Bigham

Pledge of Allegiance: Greenbrier High School NJROTC

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognitions

1. Advanced Placement Honor Schools

   1. Evans High School: AP Humanities Achievement School, AP Distinction School, AP STEM School, AP STEM Achievement School

   2. Greenbrier High School: AP Humanities School, AP Distinction School, AP STEM Achievement School

   3. Grovetown High School: AP Access & Support School, AP Humanities School, AP Humanities Achievement School, AP STEM School, AP STEM Achievement School

   4. Harlem High School: AP Distinction School

   5. Lakeside High School: AP Humanities School, AP Humanities Achievement School, AP Distinction School, AP STEM School, AP STEM Achievement School

2. Columbia County Foundation For Children

   1. Motivating Mentor Award: LTC Samson Sider, Harlem High School

3. Boys and Girls Track and Field State Championship

   1. Evans High School: Individual State Championship Competition

      1. Liliana Beemer: 2nd Place Girls 1600m Run

      2. Jeremy Howard: 1st Place Boys Long Jump

   2. Girls Track & Field State Championship

      1. Greenbrier High School

         1. Bryannah Remice: 3rd Place Girls 200m Dash

         2. 4x100m & 4x200m Relay Team State Runners-Up

            1. Amarie Burns, Neiyssaah Marius, Taylor McKoy, Bryannah Remice

   3. Boys Track & Field State Championship

      1. Grovetown High School

         1. Bryan Story: 3rd Place in 800m

   4. Boys and Girls Track & Field State Championship

      1. Lakeside High School

         1. Zion Bullard: 3rd Place Girls 200m Dash

         2. Valynsia Calhoun: State Champion Long Jump, 2026 5A Girls Track & Field High Point Total Champion, Runner Up in 300m hurdles, 3rd Place in 100m Hurdles

         3. Aysia Hawkins: 3rd Place in Girls Shot Put

         4. Andrew Phillips: 3rd Place in Boys Vault

         5. 3rd Place - 4x400m Girls Relay

            1. Zion Bullard, Valynsia Calhoun, Lealyn Dale, Kaylee Jones

         6. 3rd Place Overall in Girls Team Points:

            1. Eliana Benevides, Zion Bullard, Valynsia Calhoun, Isabella Cardona-Mendez, Lealyn Dale, Adele Gross, Aysis Hawkins, Hannah James, Kaylee Jones, Hailey McDonald, Kimberly Mullins, Ella Williams, Grace Williams

4. National Beta Club

   1. State Service Leaderboard Award: Harlem High School, Lisa Wilson, Beta Advisor

   2. School of Merit: Greenbrier Middle School

Special Recommendations

1. Grovetown High School Assistant Principal: Jesse “Russ” Winter. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Board Comments: All board members expresses gratitude to pastors, students, families, coaches, principals and the foundation. Commended AP achievements, athletics, Beta Club service, and strong public participation turnout. Praise for Mr. Winter’s credentials and return to Columbia County

Approval of Consent Items

1. Minutes of May 12, 2026, Regular Session Meeting and Minutes of May 26, 2026, Special Called Meeting

2. April Financials

3. Budget Amendment and Transfer

4. Fundraisers

5. Employee Travel

6. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

7. Lease/Use of Facilities

April Financials were pulled from consent items. Approval for items 1, 3, 4-7: Yay 5, No 0

April Financials discussion: Approval: Yay 5, No 0

• Increase of $6 million in state sources budget clarified as one-time state revenue for employee supplement, covered by a corresponding revenue and expenditure amendment.

• Building program financials (SPLOST 2017-2022): $500,000 increase in furniture budget was explained as a move of unallocated funds to align with previously approved furniture bid

Approval of FY2027 Budget Approve: Yay 3 (Baker, Teasley, Dekle), No 2 (Kent & Allen) (Passed with the $20 million transfer to General Fund)

• Casado (CFO): Previous version included $10.6 million placeholder for a 3% COLA and $20 million transfer to building program. Since then, additional $2.785 million in state revenue received

• Changes to current budget:

  • Increase employee COLA from 3% to 5% (additional $5.5 million cost)

  • Increase paid lunch prices to $3.75 instead of proposed $4.00 ($200,000 revenue reduction)

  • After adjustment, projected ending FY27 general fund balance is $83.89 million

• Kent made a motion to amend the budget to reduce the general fund transfer to the building fund from $20 million to $10 million. Yay 1 (Kent), No 4

  • Kent argued this represented continued use of property-tax-supported General Fund dollars for construction projects that voters expected SPLOST to cover. Felt this was a compromise.

    • Emphasized repeatedly that he supported the building program and the planned high school projects, arguing that his proposal was intended to slow the use of General Fund dollars for construction rather than halt or cancel renovations.

  • Allen’s arguments:

    • Stated that the Maintenance & Operations budget increased from approximately $21.8 million five years ago to $39.8 million currently and said she had not received requested explanations for the increase.

    • Questioned why the district could not provide projected expenditures for Greenbrier and Harlem projects over the next three fiscal years.

  • Casado/Teasley: school districts routinely use General Fund dollars for capital maintenance and the district would still retain approximately $83.89 million (about 20% of expenditures) in reserves after the transfer.

• Allen made a motion to reduce the transfer to $900,000, allowing for project-by-project approval. Yay 2 (Kent & Allen), No 3 (Baker, Teasley, Dekle)

  (Transcripted)

  Katie Allen: My discussion point on what is the need to make that transfer in approving this budget tonight versus doing it project by project. What is the argument that we must do it all in one lump sum tonight versus project by project throughout the fiscal year?”

  Chairman Dekle: One thing is we don’t have to listen to you as much and give (didn’t catch the end.)

  Chairman Dekle: I apologize. I apologize.

Board Policies

1. Board Policy BCBI, Public Participation in Board Meetings Approve: Yay 5, No 0

2. Board Policy KG, Use of School Facilities:

   1. Proposed updates

      1. Removing fee descriptions

      2. removing “extended use” section

      3. Clarifying district priority for facilities

      4. Will be voted on in July after feedback period.

Code of Conduct Update. Approval: Yay 4, No 1 (Allen)

1. Updates: New format, special sections for key topics (bullying, attendance), and new state-required additions. New state code restricting electronic device use extended to high schools. (District extended to high schools last year)

2. Attendance Policy (suggested from juvenile court)

   1. 10th unexcused absence: certified letter

   2. 3rd unexcused absence: intervention plan

Discussion: Parent note makes absences excused (up to 5 per semester). Notifications for unexcused absences are automated. Allen Suggested to change notification threshold from 3rd to 5th unexcused absence. Noted that this was at the request of the juvenile court.

Building Program Bid Result

1. CMAR (Construction Management at Risk) Selection for Greenbrier Renovation. Approve: Yay 4, No: 0, Abstain: 1 (Allen)

   1. RFP Process: An RFP for Greenbrier renovation was issued with 5 firms interviewed. Evaluation committee recommended Harold Daniel Construction, which received highest rating/scores and lowest fees.

      1. Discussion on selection/conflict of interest

         1. Committee uses a rubric scoring model.

         2. Concern raised about potential conflict of interest as the recommended firm scheduled a dinner with the board when they were in Savannah.

            1. Kent sent an email, raised a number of questions, and the dinner was cancelled

   2. Project scope and budget: Estimated GMP for project is $80.4 million, with a total board set-aside of $96 million. Goal is to receive bids by September/October.

Superintendent Reports

• Student Registration for 26-27 year open now

• Summer School: 6/25/2026 commencement

Public Participation:

• Priscilla Bence

• Trinity Bennett

• Karin Parham

• Janet Duggan

• Renee Ginn

• Stephanie Tee

• Lorraine Thomas

After Executive Session

• Affidavit that only legally allowed topics discussed during closed executive session: Yay 4, Abstain: 1 (Allen - not present for entire meeting)

• Personnel Sheet. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• Discipline Appeal. Approve: Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen)

• Superintendent’s Contract. Approve: Yay 3 (Dekle, Baker, Teasley), Opposed 1 (Kent), Abstain 1 (Allen, she said due to concerns about the process)

Adjourn: 8:45pm

District 2 Board Member Kristi Baker was not present.

Call to Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: Grace Baptist Church Senior Pastor Bill Hilley

Pledge of Allegiance by Brookwood and Westmont Elementary Schools 4-H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 4, No 0

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 4, No 0

• Minutes of April 21, 2026 Regular Session and April 28, 2026 Special Called Meeting

• Budget Amendments

• Fundraisers

• Employee Travel

• Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

• Lease/Use of Facilities

Special Recognitions

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Awards (GOSA CCRPI)

• Greatest Gains:

  • Baker Place Elementary — Bronze

• Highest Performance:

  • Greenbrier Elementary — Bronze

  • North Columbia Elementary — Silver

  • Greenbrier Middle School — Bronze

  • Riverside Elementary — Bronze

  • Stallings Island Middle School — Bronze

• Highest Performance and Greatest Gains:

  • Lewiston Elementary — Silver

  • Parkway Elementary — Bronze and Silver

  • River Ridge Elementary — Silver and Platinum

  • Stevens Creek Elementary — Bronze and Gold

Columbia County School District Aspiring Principals Academy Graduates (2025-2026)

• Marisa Forney — Grovetown MS

• Thomas Holtzner — Evans HS

• Whitney Quattlebaum — Cedar Ridge ES (also named principal for 2026-2027)

• Kellen Smith — Euchee Creek ES

• Lachandra Thomas-Mole — Grovetown ES

• Kimberly Wall — Harlem HS

• Rebecca Walls — Riverside ES

• Zachary Watson — Grovetown HS

• Jessica Williams — Blue Ridge ES (also named principal for 2026-2027)

Congressional Art Competition, Georgia District 12

• First runner-up: Arianna Brunk, Columbia Virtual Academy

• Third runner-up and People’s Choice Award: Nidhi Patel, Lakeside HS

Georgia Department of Education Award of Excellence

• Charles Dykes, Evans HS

Georgia Governor’s Honors Program Finalists, Evans HS

• Breanna Cannon — Agricultural Research, Biotechnology and Science

• Bailey Pease — Dance (will participate in the program this summer)

Georgia Junior Achievement 19 Under 19

• Iris Holberton — Columbia County Virtual Academy

Health Occupations Students of America (HOSA)

• Greenbrier High School:

  • First place: Charlotte Dye (Respiratory Therapy), Kathryn Fagan (Patient Care Technician), Cecilia Muro (Physical Therapist)

  • Second place: Isabelle Best (Student Nursing), Madelyn Lincicum (Community Emergency Response Team), Ella Pascual (Dental Science), Caroline Sidley (Pharmacy Science), Blake Sommers (Community Emergency Response Team)

  • Third place: Leah Borchardt (Respiratory Therapy), Lily Romagnoli (Medical Assistant)

• Lakeside High School:

  • Second place: Charlotte Geisen (Sports Medicine)

  • Second place: Vansh Sarin (Prepared Speaking)

  • Third place: Aarav Gupta (Research Poster/Leadership Events)

Margaret Rogers Scholarship

• Nicole Boyett — Greenbrier ES

• Shira Martin — Parkway ES

JROTC — Grovetown High School

State placements:

• First place, female armed platoon:

  • Takiyah Momon (Commander)

  • Aryianna Bates

  • Amayo Biyo

  • Jade Gantt

  • Amarah Hariston

  • Michaiah Hill

  • Aubrii Marshall

  • Destiny Moore

  • Divine Onoh

  • Jalyn Rentz

  • Lauryn Richardson

  • Mikaylis Slater

  • Skylar Walker

• First place, female unarmed squad

  • Amaya Biyo (Commander)

  • Jade Gantt

  • Amarah Hariston

  • Takiyah Momon

  • Divine Onoh

  • Jalyn Rentz

  • Mikaylis Slater

• Second place, Female Armed Squad

  • Takiyah Momon (Commander)

  • Aryianna Bates

  • Amaya Biyo

  • Jade Gantt

  • Amarah Hariston

  • Jalyn Rentz

  • Mikaylis Slater

• Second Place - Male “Coed” Unarmed Platoon

  • Wyatt Reid (Commander)

  • Noah Brown

  • Trinity Colbenson

  • Alexander Colon

  • Mackenzie Gates

  • Jocelyn Graham

  • Isaac Harrington

  • Brianna Lester

  • Jioni Morales

  • Mariah Miller

  • Jaidev Pichardo

  • Logan Smith

  • Jake Tilson

  • Corri Towns

  • Tyler Warner

• Second place, male armed squad

  • Tyler Warner (Commander)

  • Noah Brown

  • Alexander Colon

  • Jioni Morales

  • Jaidev Pichardo

  • Wyatt Reid

  • Logan Smith

• Third place overall, Raider Coed Team

  • Kloe Lombardo

  • Sani Mahamane

  • Logan Smith

  • Khloe’ Tansiel

  • Arian Walker

  • Kiara Ward

  • Ariana Washington

  • Neriah Bates

  • Eliana Belt

  • Noah Brown

  • Alexander Colon

  • Pablo Colon

  • Kymberleigh Danner

  • Edwin Domaskin

National placements:

• Fifth place, duo armed exhibition

  • Noah Brown (Captain)

  • Jaidev Pichardo

• Seventh place, unarmed platoon regulation female

  • Amaya Biyo (Commander)

  • Jade Gantt

  • Jocelyn Graham

  • Amarah Hariston

  • Michaiah Hill

  • Mariah Miller

  • Takiyah Momon

  • Destiny Moore

  • Divine Onoh

  • Jalyn Rentz

  • Lauryn Richardson

  • Mikaylis Slater

  • Skylar Walker

NJROTC Academic Team — Greenbrier High School

• First place, Area 7A Team

  • Eve Nevarez

  • Joseph Puskas

  • Yamil Soto

  • Alice Vile

• Second place, Academic “B” Team

  • Tristan Bender

  • Owen Lambert

  • Tierra Parker

  • Lauryn Riviera

  • Jasmina Yarasheva

• Tenth place overall

  • Tristan Binder

  • Eve Nevarez

  • Joseph Puskas

  • Yamil Soto

  • Alice Vile

Personnel Recommendations — New Assistant Principals Approved unanimously.

• Amber Bentley — Greenbrier High School

• Erica Wilson — Harlem High School

• Scott McClintock — Lakeside High School

• Heather Thickpin Stefani — Cedar Ridge Elementary.

• Brittany Brown — Cedar Ridge Elementary

FY2027 Budget Presentation and Public Input

CFO Alex Casado and Superintendent Dr. Flynt presented the FY2027 proposed budget. Third presentation of the same document with no changes from prior sessions. Final budget approval is scheduled for June 16, 2026.

Key figures in the proposed budget as presented:

• 3% cost of living adjustment for all employees, combined with step increases expected to bring most employees to approximately 6% total

• Addition of 13 custodians, returning staffing to pre-pandemic levels

• Special education enhancements approved in February (planning time, stipends, reorganization) included

• $10.6 million in general fund improvements total

• $20 million general fund transfer to the building program

• Proposed lunch price increase from $3.50 to $4.00 for paid lunches, generating an estimated $660,000 in additional school nutrition revenue

Board member Katie Allen (District 4) proposed increasing the employee raise to 5%, at an additional cost of $5.5 million over the proposed 3%, arguing the district’s consistent surplus history makes it sustainable without a tax increase. She asserted that the district has run annual surpluses ranging from $18 million to $30.8 million since FY2021. She cited FY2025 surplus of $30.8 million and a projected FY2026 ending surplus of $17.3 million. Allen also raised concerns about the $20 million general fund transfer to the building program, noting that without the $180 million Harlem High School bond proceeds, the building program fund balance entering FY2027 would have been $9 million, which combined with anticipated E-SPLOST revenue would have left the program $4 million short of covering Lakeside and Evans project costs alone. She argued the transfer is unsustainable at the current pace and called for a separate discussion on the building program before budget approval.

Board member Philip Kent (District 1) expressed support for a 5% raise and called for a pause and reassessment of the building program, saying taxpayers would prefer employee raises over building expenditures given changed economic conditions since 2022. He suggested cutting the transfer to $10 million.

Judy Teasley (District 3) also indicated support for the 5% raise.

Chairman Dekle expressed support for the CFO’s proposed 3% budget, citing the ongoing nature of salary increases and the absence of state appropriations for raises. He also defended general fund transfers to the building program as necessary given the age and number of district facilities.

Dr. Flynt cautioned against spending projected surpluses before they are realized, citing equalization dollars as a significant variable, and disputed Allen’s analysis of the building program funding gap.

Tentative budget vote: A motion by Chairman Dekle to table the tentative vote failed, with Dekle the only vote in favor.

A motion by Allen for tentative approval of the budget as presented failed. Dekle voted in favor; Allen, Kent, and Teasley voted against.

Public Speakers Budget:

• Jessica Fisher: Questioned the cost-benefit of the iReady program, district-level award spending while teachers reported to her that they are lacking basic supplies, and summer school costs. She noted that percentage-based raises benefit higher-paid administrators more than teachers in dollar terms, flagged the addition of another Title One school as a sign of economic stress, and suggested bonuses rather than raises if sustainability is a concern.

• Janet Duggan: Argued Dr. Flynt is misrepresenting the district's financial picture, specifically on the relationship between millage rate reductions and actual tax relief given digest growth. She challenged the assertion that general fund transfers to the building program were publicly known, noted $510 million has been allocated to three high schools in a program originally scoped at $493 million for 31 schools, and called the capital projects list used to justify the $20 million transfer "political theater."

• Max Brown: A parent of four CCSD students, supported the 5% raise, noted the district's general fund balance is running $23 million higher than projected, and argued the budget is a policy document reflecting priorities — warning that failing to close the 10.4% inflation gap signals to teachers they are undervalued.

Final budget vote is scheduled for June 16, 2026.

Inspire School Spotlight — Lewiston Elementary Presented by Associate Superintendent Dr. Kristen Carroll and Principal Sherry Allen

Lewiston highlighted two focus areas: co-teaching and student goal setting. The school uses a co-teaching model across general education classes, pairing general education teachers with special education, EIP, and gifted teachers for shared planning and instruction. Students maintain data folders tracking iReady and assessment results, meet individually with teachers for data chats, and set measurable goals for reading and math growth. Lewiston’s CCRPI has increased steadily in recent years, and the school recently received a state award for math achievement.

Board member Teasley asked about the data folder process; Principal Allen confirmed it draws from iReady diagnostics, post-tests, and other classroom data, with students monitoring their own progress throughout the year.

Board Policy JN — Awards and Scholarships. Approve: Yay 4, No 0 Change adjusts valedictorian and salutatorian determination to the first semester grading period.

Board Policy BCBI — Public Participation in Board Meetings Not voted on. Presented for discussion based on new case law guidance from the University of Georgia Law Center. Proposed changes clarify maximum speaking time, speaker selection process, and registration window. Board will review further before a vote.

Strategic Plan Annual Update

Goal 1 — Maximum Achievement and Success for Each Student (Chief Academic Officer LeAnne Gregg)

• refinement of ACE instructional guides across all courses and grade levels

• a new writing assessment in grades 4, 7, and 9

• expanded CTAE offerings including a new culinary arts class and a construction equipment operator pathway under development

• a successful pilot of the Strings Academy

• integration of Next Gen standards into ACE course documents

• an AI tools pilot for teachers and students

• redesigned credit recovery and summer school programs with a new platform for all EOC courses.

• The PSAT 8/9 is now administered to 8th graders to identify candidates for AP courses in high school.

Board member Allen asked how the board tracks progress against the strategic plan’s baseline percentages. Gregg confirmed a tracking document exists and that an annual student achievement presentation (typically in September/October) provides the detailed update.

Goal 2 — Community Engagement and Support (CFO Alex Casado)

• expansion of the Columbia County School District Foundation (established 2023)

• growth in work-based learning placements from approximately 26% to 40% in high-skill, high-wage opportunities

• a partnership with Augusta University allowing Teaching as a Profession students to earn college credit while in high school.

• The district also overhauled its website and continued its monthly employee newsletter.

Goal 3 — Consistent and Supportive Culture (Associate Superintendent Steve Cummings)

• implementation of behavior threat assessment teams at each school, with administrator training scheduled during post-planning

• launch of the ACES elementary counseling curriculum

• first-year implementation of the Signs of Suicide program at middle and high school levels.

Board member Katie Allen raised concerns about the Signs of Suicide program. This is transcripted:

Last fall, my daughter is a senior, and she had gone through the Signs of Suicide program at Harlem High School. I have some concerns about when I opted her out and viewed the slides, the materials that were sent weren’t the actual student materials, and so I kind of went through a process to where I ultimately had to go to the school to view the student materials. And then when I did, I found that the third video was a scenario that really with the teacher’s script discussed the student dealing with a sexuality issue. The opt-out form to the parents didn’t really communicate the fact that this is a suicide program be addressing students struggling with sexuality, and also part of the problem was the video. Their solution was oriented around ‘don’t talk to mom. It hurts when your parents don’t understand or don’t accept you for who you truly are.’ And so I kind of was concerned that we would be showing a video that directed students away from their parents and paired it with a script that says, “Note to facilitators: Students may discuss how Luke, the character in the video, may be struggling with sexual orientation or gender identity. This could be a good time to mention resources available in your school or community.'“

Associate Superintendent Penny Jackson responded that the facilitator note has since been removed and that the district has improved the parent materials access process. Parents will now receive direct links to student materials rather than having to visit the school in person.

Goal 4 — Facilities and Operational Excellence (Associate Superintendent Penny Jackson and CIO James Van Meter)

• transition from EdLog to Transportation Finder for routing

• integration with ParentSquare for a single parent communication app

• enhanced custodial training; continued installation of Cormax key locking systems (two schools remaining); and the Safe and Epic alert/digital mapping system now used by the sheriff’s department.

• Van Meter reported a $2.5 million edge network switch upgrade proposal coming to the board, which would complete the district’s network infrastructure overhaul. He also noted the district identified and shut down an email sniper attack without data compromise or downtime.

Goal 5 — Talent Optimization (Chief Human Resources Officer Tony Wright)

• updated recruiting strategy balancing in-person and virtual/social media outreach

• continued focus on employee benefits education

• and a planned comprehensive review of all salary schedules (the first since 2021-2022) with attention to South Carolina competition, specifically Aiken County.

Building Program Bid Results

• Ice cream products (school nutrition): Approve Yay 4, No 0. Hershey Creamery Company, estimated $165,504 for first year. District has held contracts with Hershey since approximately 2020.

• Multipurpose copy paper: Approve Yay 4, No 0. CPG, $220,374 estimated for 7,560 cases. CPG and Perimeter Office submitted identical bids; CPG recommended based on existing successful contract and working relationship.

• Network switches: Approve Yay 4, No 0. DSI, $2,836,809. Lowest bidder Questivity, a California-based company with no documented presence in Georgia, received a lower score on the evaluation matrix. Funding: approximately 60% e-rate, 40% E-SPLOST technology funds (~$1.1 million from E-SPLOST).

• Chromebooks: Approve Yay 4, No 0. $513,578 for approximately 1,125 units at $456.50 each. Supply chain issues with Intel processors prompted a bulk purchase. Funding: mix of Title 1, general funds, and E-SPLOST.

Superintendent Reports

Dr. Flynt highlighted:

• Arts in the Plaza Fine Arts Showcase (April 25): 1,384 students and four guest musicians performed; over 1,000 pieces of artwork displayed; 670 frames sold; 3,443 tickets sold; two graduating seniors received $1,000 fine arts scholarships. Save the date: April 24, 2027.

• National School Lunch Hero Day (May 1) and National School Nurse Appreciation Day (May 6) recognitions.

• District nursing director Lisa Lyles is retiring.

• Teach at the Peach signing day: 47 graduating seniors committed to pursuing education careers; five received $1,000 scholarships from Georgia’s Own Credit Union.

• The first three graduates of the Teaching as a Profession program from the Class of 2022 are returning to CCSD as teachers next year.

• New Teacher End of Year Celebration: Outstanding First Year Educator named as Victoria Van Natta, Baker Place Elementary.

• Graduation ceremonies for the Class of 2026 at Evans Towne Center Park. Tickets required. Inclement weather plan moves ceremonies indoors to the Columbia County Performing Arts Center with limited tickets.

• Summer school registration open through May 22 for middle and high school students.

• Kindergarten Kickoff: May 14, 5:00-6:30 pm at each school.

• Last day of school: May 20 (early dismissal).

Public Participation

• Jason Myers: asked the board to consider partnering with Georgia Appalachian Pineland Services (GAPS) to offer world language instruction beginning at the 8th grade level, noting the program costs approximately $500 per student compared to roughly $60,000 for a teacher. He highlighted Chinese, Japanese, and other language offerings as relevant to community employers including Augusta National and Bridgestone.

• Janet Dugan: Thanked board members Allen, Kent, and Teasley for their positions on the 5% raise and building program reassessment. She challenged the district’s assertion that general fund transfers to the building program were publicly disclosed prior to this year’s budget hearings, noting transfers of $23 million (FY2025) and $10 million (FY2023 or FY2024) were not listed or discussed during those budget presentations. She stated that $510 million has been allocated across three high schools in a program originally scoped at $493 million for 31 schools over ten years, and called the inclusion of routine maintenance items on the capital projects list justifying the $20 million transfer “political theater.”

• Jessica Fisher: Expressed general support for prioritizing classroom funding and affirming that the Lewiston Elementary spotlight presentation accurately reflected what is happening at that school based on her daughter’s experience as a fifth grader there.

Executive Session The board retired to executive session to discuss personnel and real estate matters. Upon returning, the board approved an administrative contract and the personnel sheet, both unanimously.

Adjourn

Next Regular Session: June 16, 2026

(Note: Slides and video available on the district website. Budget will be considered for final approval at the June 16, 2026 Board meeting.)

Call to Order: 8am. All board members present.

FY2027 Budget Presentation

Budget Process Overview

• Board approves budget at the legal reporting level, expenditure function and revenue source by fund

• Budget managed by district within board-approved limits

• Expenditures exceeding budget by fund and function must return to board for approval via budget amendment

• Board receives monthly financial reports by fund and function

• Building program reports are detailed by project and by each active E-SPLOST cycle

General Fund

• Total estimated revenue: $390,044,500

• Total estimated expenditures (before needed improvements): $418,765,112

• Needed improvements: $10,657,625

• Revenue breakdown (general fund only): 58.80% state, 40.98% local, 0.22% federal

• 15th largest district out of 180 in Georgia by FTE

• 6th in state for percent of budget spent on instruction

• Last in state (180/180) for percent spent on general administration

• 174th out of 180 for per-pupil total expenditure ($12,155)

Employer Benefits / Major Increases

• FICA & Medicare: unchanged at 7.65%

• Teacher Retirement System: increased to 22.32% (up 1.87%)

• Certified and non-certified health insurance: increased to $23,220 annually (up 2.65%)

• Life insurance and supplemental retirement: unchanged

• Summary of mandatory cost increases built into budget:

  • Step increase: $4,200,000

  • State health insurance: $2,800,000

  • Teacher Retirement System: $1,500,000

History of Salary Increases

• Cumulative US inflation since 2020: 27.3%

• Cumulative COLA since 2020: 16.9%

• Gap: 10.4%

• 2026 adjustment was a $2,000 one-time stipend for all employees (not a permanent scale increase)

General Fund Improvements — Needed Improvements & Estimated Cost

1. 3% cost of living adjustment to all scales $8,276,348

2. Add 3 registered behavior technicians $165,000

3. Add 1 SPED coordinator $129,474

4. Add 0.5 SPED nurse $40,000

5. Increase curriculum specialists from 220 to 225 days $21,880

6. Reclassify coordinator to director in Curriculum & Instruction $12,565

7. Add 13 custodians to school buildings across the district $752,571

8. Increase HS Bookkeeper and Principal Secretary from 220 to 225 days $12,612

9. Add a step to administrative scale to bring in line with market $421,103

10. Add robotics lead stipends for schools ($1,500) $58,487

11. Reclassify 2 positions in business department to market $53,922

12. Add 1 purchasing agent $85,000

13. Add 1 open records request position $85,000

14. Add 2 HVAC techs $184,590

15. Reclassify lead custodians to market $189,955

16. Add administrative position for HR $125,240

17. Minor supplement & market adjustments $43,878

    Total$10,657,625

Board Discussion: COLA — 3% vs. 5%

Board member Katie Allen raised the possibility of increasing the proposed cost of living adjustment from 3% to 5%. The following is transcripted from the meeting:

Allen: I just want to first of all say thank you for all the work you do. And then also walk you through some of my numbers and calculations just to give you a chance to correct anything. So, based on what I am seeing from neighboring counties, I would like to do a cost of living increase for the staff from three percent to five percent. So it might have — calculations: this would cost five point five million dollars in addition to the ten point seven million for needed improvements. About correct?

Casado: Yes, that sounds right.

Allen: And so my second part is I think we can do this. And let me walk you through my numbers to explain why I believe we can do this. So we began fiscal year twenty twenty six, this current fiscal year, with a general fund balance of one hundred eight point seven million. We are projected to end this current fiscal year with the general fund balance of one hundred twenty six million. So that means we’re on track to finish this fiscal year twenty six with a seventeen point three million dollar surplus, which is what our Moody’s report said would happen — that we would be running a surplus. So it is also consistent with our history since fiscal year twenty one in which we have had an annual surplus ranging from eighteen to thirty million dollars each year. So given the projected surplus of this year, given our five and six year trends, I believe we can do this — even within our current operations budget — to do the recommended improvements and also to do that five percent cost of living increase without even raising property taxes.

I also would like to see, and I believe based on my analysis that we have room to do, some of the items that were on our improvements list from last year that we didn’t vote on. So that would be one of the ones I really wanted last year — hiring six SPED paraprofessionals. Now, last year we had that at about one hundred and eighty six thousand. I imagine it would be a little bit more, but that’s for the board to kind of think about. And then also to consider from our list last year an elementary K through seven math specialist brought in at two hundred and twenty days — four hundred twenty six thousand. So those items together would be less than four hundred thousand. So, still in the vicinity of what we could do in our operations budget that would be sustainable without a tax increase. So based on my numbers, is that approximately correct for what you say — that would be sustainable moving forward to do those things?

Casado: Yeah, I think your numbers are accurate there — relatively accurately stated. I can rerun that and look at it if you will, or tell you how much more it will cost.

(Karin’s Note: Allen also suggested reinstating two items from last year’s improvements list. Six SPED paraprofessionals (~$186,000) and an elementary K-7 math specialist (~$426,000). Kent and Dr.Flynt noted that a reorganization of the SPED department may have addressed some of the paraprofessional needs, and that any added positions would need to be mapped to the district’s weighted staffing formula. No determination was made on whether those positions are still needed.)

School Nutrition

• Program is intended to be self-sustaining

• Current estimated fund balance (6/30/26): $6,300,000

• Projected deficit for FY2027 without price increase: $1,109,444

• Projected fund balance (6/30/27) without price increase: $5,190,556

• Casado’s target fund balance: approximately $5,000,000

• No expenditure improvements recommended for school nutrition

• Revenue improvement recommended: meal price increases

• State and federal paid lunch equity calculation formula puts the target price for paid lunches at $4.25 for SY2025-26

• Estimated additional revenue from proposed increases: $660,478

• Board discussion included possibility of a smaller increase (to $3.75 for lunch) which would yield approximately $560,000 in additional revenue

• Casado noted participation has increased despite last year’s price increase

Special Revenue Funds

• Federal funds budget is a conservative estimate given federal fiscal year does not begin until October 1

• Total special revenue grants for FY2027: $11,146,538

• Includes Special Education (federal), Title I-IV, Homeless, Vocational, Lottery Pre-K, and ROTC

• Note: federal grant amounts shown do not represent total district expenditure on these programs — state and local dollars also fund these areas

Building Fund / $20M General Fund Transfer

• Proposed budget includes $20,000,000 transfer from general fund to building fund

• Building fund estimated revenue FY2027: $75,000,000

• Building fund total estimated expenditures: $154,662,888

• Building fund balance (6/30/26): $189,000,000 (reflects December 2025 bond proceeds)

• Projected building fund balance (6/30/27): $109,337,112

• The $20M transfer is designated for Phase 3 building program projects — facility maintenance and upgrades across the district

(The board didn’t have a copy of the 26-27 project list prior to the meeting. FY2026-2027 project list provided by CFO Alex Casado attached below. Total project cost: $19,077,700. Projects include HVAC replacements, fire alarm upgrades, LED lighting, restroom renovations, roof replacement, and painting across multiple schools.)

Budget Timeline

• April 21, 2026 Budget presentation to the board

• April 28, 2026 1st public input meeting

• May 12, 2026 2nd public input meeting, 5:30 p.m.

• June 16, 2026Final budget approval

Public Input

• Janet Duggan

The public will have a second opportunity for input at the May 12, 2026 board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Board members discussed several budget alternatives at this meeting, including a 5% COLA instead of 3% and additional staffing items, which may be presented with updated numbers at the May 12 meeting. The final budget will be considered for approval at the June 16, 2026 Board meeting. Both meetings are held at the Board of Education Building at 4781 Hereford Farm Road, Evans, GA.

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: Historical Tabernacle Baptist Church Executive Minister of Operations Reverend Michael Woods

Pledge of Allegiance: North Harlem ES 4H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen) Before the vote, Allen made a motion “to amend the agenda to include a discussion to address concerns regarding parental notification and consent in Signs of Suicide curriculum?

Special Recommendations

• Kelly Robertson, Principal for Stevens Creek Elementary School. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• Jessica Williams, Principal for Blue Ridge Elementary School. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognitions

1. CyberPatriot 18 Competition

   1. Evans Middle School, 3rd in the state

      1. Tinsley Myers

      2. Dean Rudy

      3. Kaleb Tanksley

   2. Greenbrier High School, State Champions All-Service Division Team

      1. Chloe Bell

      2. Garrett Carter

      3. Daniel Keyes

      4. Colton Mulrain

      5. Yamil Soto

   3. Greenbrier High School, State Champions Open Division Team

      1. Jackson Cluney

      2. Kyan Fleming

      3. Cade Mitchell

      4. Alexander Miko

      5. Alejandro Pascual

      6. Cayden Wamsley

2. Georgia Music Educators Association

   1. All-State Band

      1. Evans Middle School, Daniel Martin (1st Chair Tenor Saxophone)

      2. Greenbrier Middle School, Aric Hilyard (Trombone)

      3. Harlem Middle School, Shane Smolley (Trumpet)

      4. Evans High School

         1. Sophia Martin, Bass Clarinet

         2. Riley McDaniel, Tenor Saxophone

      5. Greenbrier High School

         1. Jackson Banks, Trombone

         2. Kevin Berry, Principal 1st Chair Trombone, All-State Orchestra

         3. Jackson Hutchinson, Trumpet

         4. Rigel Kotas, Principal 1st Chair Bass Clarinet

         5. Eli Ly, Principal 1st Chair Tenor Saxophone

         6. Pancho Mancera, Clarinet

         7. Brian Peek, Clarinet

         8. Mason Rubano, Baritone Saxophone

         9. Noah Torabi, Horn in F

      6. Harlem High School

         1. Palmer F. Bloodworth, French Horn

      7. Lakeside High School

         1. Luke Baker, French Horn

         2. Cole Eichenberger, Cello All-State Orchestra

         3. Peyton Geigle, Alto Saxophone

         4. Roran Griffin, Percussion

         5. Daniel Kim, Trombone

         6. Tavanna Mindingall, Tenor Saxophone

         7. Steven Pang, Clarinet

         8. Avery Park, Oboe

         9. Rand Sayno, Trumpet

         10. Hanyu Su, Alto Saxophone

         11. Isaac Thomas, Bass Clarinet

         12. Harry Zhou, Percussion

   2. All-State Chorus

      1. Columbia Middle School

         1. Connor Ryckeley

      2. Evans Middle School

         1. Gabriela Clawson

      3. Greenbrier Middle School

         1. Jacquelese Bailey

         2. Lucas Beasley

         3. Ace Punke-Bendt

         4. Aric Hilyard

         5. Caroline Jameson

         6. Riley Lane

         7. Amelia Russell

         8. Johnathan Tran

      4. Grovetown Middle School

         1. Kaleb Alicea

         2. Katelyn Higgs

         3. Sophia Lipham

         4. Benjamin LoBianco

         5. Jah Slaughter

         6. Ariyah Smith

      5. Harlem Middle School

         1. Braelyn Benfield, Mixed Chorus

         2. Jayce Chancey, Tenor/Bass

         3. Allie Greene, Mixed Chorus

         4. Lorelei Patrick, Mixed Chorus

      6. Stallings Island Middle School

         1. Elijah Campbell

         2. Zachary VanGroll

      7. Evans High School

         1. Addison Colson, Treble Choir

         2. Sadie Pressley, Mixed Chorus

      8. Greenbrier High School

         1. Kevin Jiang, Mixed Chorus

      9. Grovetown High School

         1. Matthew Rayburn III, Men’s Choir

      10. Lakeside High School

          1. Kashvi Boga

          2. Paige Geigle

          3. Jiaqi Sunny Huo

   3. Music Technology Showcase

      1. Columbia Virtual Academy

         1. Colton Chaffin

         2. Iris Hoberton

3. SkillsUSA State Leadership and Skills Competition

   1. Evans High School

      1. Michael Hutchinson, Heavy Equipment Operator, 3rd Place

      2. Axel Lombera, Mobile Electronics, 2nd Place

   2. Grovetown High School

      1. Colin Davis, Automotive Brakes, 2nd Place

   3. Harlem High School

      1. Crime Scene Investigation, 2nd Place

         1. Madison Pollard

         2. Anslee Rowell

         3. Christina VanVoorhis

      2. Legal Service Test, 2nd Place

         1. Olivia Thacker

      3. Tactical Response Team, 2nd Place

         1. Connor Grant

         2. Brenden Holley

         3. Amaria Rucker

         4. Jaxon Sanchez

      4. Criminal Justice, 3rd Place

         1. Giselle Angel Hernandez

      5. Internetworking, 3rd Place

         1. Jackson Spegal

      6. Job Demonstration, 3rd Place

         1. Annabelle Summers

4. Savannah College of Art and Design Scholastic Art and Writing Awards

   1. Columbia Virtual Academy

      1. Iris Holberton, 3rd place, photography “A Walk Through Nature”

      2. Jordynn Wilson, 3rd Place, drawing “Longest Line”

Board Comments

Approval of Consent Items: A, C, D, E, F. February Financials pulled out. Yay 5, No 0 Februry Financials: Yay 5, No 0

Allen had concerns about the SPLOST 2017-2022 Report. Discrepancy between $800,000 budget for the central warehouse project and the winning bid of $687,700 from Carol Daniel. Clarification provided that architecht and engineering fees (typically 6% but recently as low as 5.25%) are separate from and additional to a general contractor’s bid. The architect is Aces Environmental Services (approved list).

Discussion Topics

1. Inspire School Spotlight, North Columbia Elementary School

   1. “the Dragon Way”

   2. Uses ACE framework (Engage, Enrich, Inspire)

   3. Transformation Rooms for Engagement: Starbucks Cafe, etc

   4. Student Goal Setting

2. NexGen Cyber Robotics and AI Update, LeAnne Gregg and Stephanie Gamlin

   1. Aims to prepare students to be creators of tech, not just consumers, in partnership with cyber field leaders (Ft Gordon)

   2. 3 Areas of Focus

      1. Standardizing robotics equipment district-wid (VEX)

      2. providing professional learning for teachers

      3. creating district-wide competition opportunities

      4. 5-year plan for K12 Robotics and AI Integration

         1. Year 1: Laid groundwork by launching robotics in elementary media centers

         2. Year 2 (current): Expanded to Middle School with 45-day exploratory connections class

         3. Year 3 (2026-2027): Transition from centralized media center access to classroom and club integration in elementary schools

         4. Future Goals: Will include programmable drones and aims to make district a powerhouse in the VEX arena. By year 5, should be mature, with elementary competitions and middle schools hosting qualifiers, likely requiring dedicated support staff

Allen: Brought up concerns about balancing AI literacy with traditional literacy and math, given proficiency scores around 50%. District affirmed core subjects remain foundation. Allen also requested a formal policy on student data privacy. District detailed current rigorous safety measures, including a strict vetting process for 3rd-party software, district-specific data protection, and not releasing personally identifiable student information. The district feels it is “overly complying” with regulations.

Staff Reports:

1. Staff Update, Tony Wright, Chief HR Officer

   1. A proposal was presented to outource paraprofessional staffing to strengthen the district’s financial and instructional models.

   2. The current model is financially unsustainable due to risings costs of benefits. An average para costs the district nearly $54K annually, with the cost of 300 locally-funded positions being a significant burden.

   3. Proposal to transition to a vendor-owned model for new hires through attrition; no current employees would lose their jobs. Outsourced cost is projected at about $29K per position, saving almost $24K. Employees would get a higher wage but not the district’s State health benefits.

   4. Savings would be reallocated to hire more certified teachers, identified as most important factor in student achievement. State funds a majority of a certified eacher’s cost (about $110K total), making them a more efficient use of local funds compared to 100% locally-fundd Paras.

Board members raised concerns about potential for higher turnover (currently about 80 per year annually), loss of employee continuity and investment in students, and quality of staff.

District could revert back to traditional model if outsourcing fails.

Board Policy IHF(6) Graduation requirements - Entering Fall 2008-09 and thereafter. Approve Yay 5, No 0

• Just changing wording to make State standards more clear.

One-time supplement for eligible employees: Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• State funded a $2000 supplement ($5.8 million from state). Staff recommends extending to all employees of the school district to be paid on 4/1/2026. ($2.7 million from General Fund)

Building program

1. Resolution to Amend FY2025 Capital Outlay Application. Yay 5, No 0

2. OA Agreement and Mandatory Addendum for Greenbrier High School. Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen)

A mandatory Owner-Architect agreement addendum to receive State capital Outlay funding for the Greenbrier HS Project. The project’s early cost estimate is $82.7 million, but will change as progress. This is necessary step to proceed with the state. Discussed different bids and expenses.

Superintendent Reports

1. CC Career & College Expo and annual TAP Talks

2. Upcoming Events

   1. Media Specialist Appreciation Week: March 23-27

   2. Assistant Principal Appreciation Week:

   3. National Paraprofessional Appreciation Day (April 1)

   4. Spring Break: April 6-13th

   5. Summer School Registration April 27th - May 22nd

Executive Session: Yay 5, No 0

1. Affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

2. Personnel Sheet: Yay 4, No 0, Abstain: 1 (Dekle)

3. Settlement: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: 8:30 pm

Call To Order: 5:30 pm

Invocation: St. Teresa o Avila Catholic Church, Deacon Kerry Diver

Pledge of Allegiance: Baker Place ES 4H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Special Recognitions

• Boys and Girls Swimming Individual and Team State Championships

  • Boys Individual

    • Bryce Douglas, 2nd Place Overall, 100m Breaststroke (Evans HS)

  • Girls Individual

    • Heba Fouitah, 1st Place 200m Medley & 2nd Place 100m Butterfly (Lakeside HS)

    • Allison Jost, 1st Place 50m Freestyle & 2nd Place 200m Backstroke (Lakeside HS)

  • Girls Swimming Team State Championship (Lakesid HS, 1st Place 4x100 Freestyle Team Relay)

    • Heba Fouitah

    • Grace Gambrell

    • Allison Jost

    • Taylor Marchan

  • Girls Swimming Team State Championship (Lakesid HS, 2nd Place 200m Medley Team Relay)

    • Heba Fouitah

    • Grace Gambrell

    • Allison Jost

    • Georgia Morris

  • Girls Swimming Team State Championship (Lakeside HS, 3rd Place overall)

    • Vera Eichenberger

    • Heba Fouitah

    • Grace Gambrell

    • Katherine Johnson

    • Allison Jost

    • Emily Jost

    • Paige Kessler

    • Taylor Marchan

    • Clara Martin

    • Georgia Morris

    • Kimberly Mullins

  • Girls Swimming Team State Championships (Lakeside HS, 2nd Place 200m Medley Team Relay)

    • Heba Fouitah

    • Grace Gambrell

    • Allison Jost

    • Georgia Morris

• Boys and Girls Wrestling Individual and Duals Team State Championship

  • Michelle Kowalsky, 2nd Place, 120lb weight class (Evans HS)

  • Leonard Gallagher, 2nd Place, 144lb weight class (Greenbrier HS)

  • Shaniyah McDaniel, 1st Place, 125lb weight class (Grovetown HS)

  • Victor Smith, 2nd Place, 157lb weight class (Grovetown HS)

  • 2nd Place, Wrestling Dual Team: Greenbrier HS

    • Daniella Anguiano

    • Alexis Bryan

    • Ava Byrd

    • Reagan Carnes

    • Jansen Drumgoole

    • Journey Drumgoole

    • Malee Head

    • Taylor Hickok

    • Esperanza Huitron

    • Shane Isla-Rios

    • Gabrielle Jefferson

    • Renee Jetter

    • Hannah Kirkland

    • Josie McQuillan

    • Tierra Parker

    • Grace Patterson

    • Mackenzie Shannon

    • Laci Sherrill

    • Kirra Silva

    • Jaidyn Smith

    • Kenya Solomon

    • Elka Stancoven

    • Claire Washburn

Board Member Comments and Acknowledgements

• Board members thanked students, parents, coaches and 4H Leaders

• Board expressed appreciation and community pride. Acknowledged program growth.

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

• 2/24/2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes

• Budget Amendments

• Fundraisers

• Emloyee Travel

• Program/Camp/Employee Particpation Requests

• Lease/Use Facilities

Board Policy IHF(6), Graduation Requirements - Entering Fall 2008-09 and thereafter

• Put it in alignment with state guidance. This will be put out until next meeting, and will vote on it then.

Building Program

• Project Update

  • Lakeside HS: Progress on gym, pictures of roof and new entrance.

  • Evans HS: Close to moving in. Tennis courts in back - paved. Pics of PAC and chorus/band areas. Track around the top of gym, load bleachers from the top down. Pics of Cafeteria

  • Harlem HS: Back area graded. email just went to parents because moving traffic lanes.

• Amendment: Yay 4, Opposed 1 (Katie Allen)

Flynt: Required to receive State capital outlay funds; adjusts to actual state contribution

Allen: This is for the increase from $80 million to $94 million due to athletic Fields and inflation?

Flynt: Yes.

Superintendent Reports

• March - Appreciation for School Social Workers

• The Quest for School Breakfast Month

• 3/12/2026 4-7pm CC Exhibition Center: Career & College Expo

• 3/16/2026 Tee Up For Education

• PreK Registration: 2/23-3/20

• CC Student Art Show, 3/3-3/30

• End of Third Nine Weeks, March 10

• School Bard Appreciation Week, 3/9-3/13

• Early Dismissal 3/13

• Student Holiday/District Professional Learning Day, 3/16

• Report Cards, 3/18

• Special Olympics, 3/27

• PreK Drawing, 3/30

Public Participation

• Janet Duggan

Executive Session: Yay 5, No 0

• Legal Affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

• Contract for 190-day employee: Yay 4, Abstain: 1 (Chairman Dekle)

Adjourn: Yay 5, No 0

Invocation: Harlem Baptist Church Children & Youth Pastor Evan Powell

Pledge of Allegiance by Greenbrier and Parkway Elementary Schools 4H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No 0

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

1. 2/10/2026 Regular Session Meeting Minutes

2. January Financials

3. Budget Amendment

4. Fundraisers

5. Employee Travel

6. Program/Camp/Employee Participation REquests

7. Lease/Use Facilities

Discussion Topics and Presentations

College and Career Ready Performance Index and Acadmic Update, Associate Superintdent Dr. Kristen Carroll and Steven Cummings

1. Columbia County’s overall CCRPI score dropped by 0.1 points from 2024 to 2025, holding steady while the CSRA RESA region declined by 2.7 points.

   1. Elementary schools scored above state and regional averages but 3.4-point decrease, due to a drop in the Closing Gaps component.

   2. Middle schools showed significant growth with an 8.8-point increase, outpacing a 3.5-point state average rise.

   3. High schools experienced a 1.9-point decline, also primarily driven by Closing Gaps challenges.

2. Content Mastery and Progress

   1. Content Mastery scores rose in elementary and middle schools, with middle schools increasing by 5.2 points - gains across core subjects, especially science.

   2. High schools’ Content Mastery declined by 2.3 points, prompting focused improvement efforts.

   3. Progress scores improved across all levels; high schools showed a notable rise of 6.6 points in 2025, continuing a two-year growth trend.

   4. English Language Arts and Math growth metrics use Student Growth Percentiles to fairly measure student progress compared to peers.

3. Closing Gaps

   1. Targeted 3% improvement but if large improvement one year, it’s still another 3% the next year. One subgroup can really sway the score.

   2. Elementary schools’ Closing Gaps score dropped from 100 to 70.4 points, driven by subgroup performance shifts despite increased efforts in ELA.

   3. Middle schools improved substantially to a perfect 100 points in Closing Gaps, indicating strong subgroup progress.

   4. High schools’ Closing Gaps score fell below the state average, affected by declines in American Literature, Algebra, and U.S. History subgroups. Some gains were noted in Biology subgroups in 2025.

4. Readiness and Graduation Rate Trends

   1. Elementary and middle schools performed above state averages in readiness indicators such as on-grade-level reading, attendance, and beyond-the-core course passing.

   2. High schools improved readiness by 1.6 points with better reading levels, pathway completion, and college/career readiness scores.

   3. Columbia County’s graduation rate steadily increased, reaching 93.5%, remaining above the state average.

   Attendance discussion with Penny Jackson: Data shows that students missing 5-15 days really has an impact on ability of student to achieve at high levels. While they have looked at students missing over 15 days, looking more at 5-15 range because that is a larger number and still has big impact. Looking at ways to lessen that.

Staff Reports

1. CTAE and Academic Pathway Update, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Brian Campbell and Director of CTAE Brooks Smith

   1. Broad CTAE Program Reach and Pathway Variety

      1. Columbia County offers at least one pathway in 13 of 14 career clusters recognized statewide - 155 unique pathways.

      2. Agriculture programs embed elements of energy and natural resources pathways, covering all clusters practically.

      3. Programs offer career preparation with multiple pathway options.

   2. Rising Student Engagement and Work-Based Learning

      1. Student enrollment in CTAE pathways grown since 2019.

      2. Work-based learning increased , supported by partnerships with local businesses and community orgs

   3. High School CTAE Pathway Access and Expansion

      1. Each high school offers CTAE pathways; ie, Greenbrier added Financial Services and Agriculture.

      2. Grovetown HS offers pathways including Cosmetology; Harlem HS includes welding and electrical embedded in agriculture.

      3. Lakeside HS added Audio, Visual, Film & add Culinary Arts next year.

   4. Middle School Interest Surveys Inform Planning

      1. Surveys of 6th-8th graders show Health Science as the top interest, followed by Engineering, aligning student interest with workforce demand.

      2. Survey data guides decisions on adding or expanding pathways at specific high schools, such as potential Engineering at Greenbrier.

2. ACE Curriculum Hub Enhancements

   1. Next Generation Standards Integration

      1. Curriculum specialists embedding Next Gen standards into ACE Case guides, aiming for first semester completion by fall. Examples include science standards on matter changes and digital footprint concepts integrated with teacher resources.

   2. Resource Review and Expansion

      1. ACE Case instructional guides are undergoing thorough review to meet teacher needs and incorporate teacher-submitted resources.

      2. CTAE and Fine Arts curriculum resources are newly added to ACE Case, giving instructional specialists and teachers centralized access.

      3. Fine Arts Curriculum Support

         1. Fine Arts teachers now access updated ACE Case resources, with scope and sequence guides and curricular focus documents available.

         2. Plans include ongoing development of instructional guides and materials for all Fine Arts departments.

3. Black History Month, Associate Superintendent Steve Cummings

   1. Black History is embedded in K12 curriculum throughout year but highlighted in Februrary

   2. Many schools had assemblies with displays, music & art presentations

   3. Euchee Creek - display with historical figures

   4. Decorated classrooms & buildings

   5. Musicians

Board Norms and Protocols. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Building Program Bid Result. Approve: Yay 3, No 1 (Kent), Abstain 1 (Allen, due to lack of information)

Kent: I have a concern, just on principal, that as much as I love all of these beautiful buildings we’re building for the district, I’d like it to be spread out a little bit more, I just have a concern about spending more on these building projects.

Allen: This is almost $700,000 and this is the first I’ve seen of this. All I’ve seen is this spreadsheet. It wasn’t on the SPLOST list, which is why we have to approve it tonight. I would like some additional information, and I’m not trying to micromanage, but is the expectation really that we would approve it based on this spreadsheet?

Flynt: This is something that we have been discussing for a number of years. We have three buildings that have most of our warehouse operations. And even that isn’t all of the materials. It’s cumbersome and when we discussed this with the board a couple of years ago, we put that on the list and have been waiting for a time when we could do that. This is a good time. We’re hoping that once we get this built, when we get through the summertime, prior to moving the distribution operation to one location, that would allow us to do that probably right after the beginning of school or as we move into first semester… Better time because a lot of our operations work happens over summer. Some of the discussion that was going on… That is a large area of a warehouse. One of the concerns is that we do need personnel over there. So by consolidating all of our operations into one location, all of the manpower would be in that location. We do have a lot of storage over there right now, and so it’s not really manned by anybody that is over that, even though we keep it locked up. There’s a lot more than that, but it would be, in our estimation, an excellent use of dollars just because it’s going to help us with inventory of items that we’re buying as they come into the district. We’ll have a better handle on when that gets distributed to the Schools and then inventory control once all that information is in the schools and then surplused out over time. A lot of that is a lot of work for our folks for the next couple of years. It’s gonna take us a little bit of work to get that to happen at the highest level. But right now it’s at a difficult stage because we’re in multiple places and even though we’ve got good people trying to keep up with it, it’s very hard to do.

Baker: Is one of the places the Columbia Road area?

Flynt: Yep. And as you’ll know a couple of years ago we kind of cut a hole in the old gym out there because we needed a little more climate control space. The new warehouse already has the areas where trucks can back up to use the loading docks and things like that. So it’s going to help with processing material and purchases where right now we’re just getting them down and manhandling them into the areas. Right now we are taking some items into different departments because we don’t have enough room in there. Some things get ordered and delivered to people different spots. The idea is for it to be a general distribution warehouse where all items will go through a full inventory control at the warehouse and then be redistributed that way. Not only would we have a very good handle on the coming and goings of all of our equipment, but you know, one person will be handling it instead of multiple departments.

Dekle: Just a little background Board members. Even before you came here many years ago we made a decision to purchase student support center. And yeah, it was an old unused ball bearing factory. We had close to 300,000 square feet of unused space. Our idea of centralizing our old warehouse system and if we went out and purchased land and built a whole new standard warehouse it would cost millions and millions of dollars. Arguably, we’ve already made an important investment and this is just the next step, which frankly has been much better.

Allen: What is the funding source for this?

Casado: We would use unallocated eSplost dollars that have not been assigned to a project yet. And we have more than enough to make that happen within eSplost currently.

Allen: I’m not familiar with this type of spreadsheet. When it says withdrawn, but then it says yes by all the documents, does that mean that the company withdrew it?

Flynt: Yeah, and it depends how that happens. But in this situation, part of the area on the bid, it didn’t encompass all the needs. And so we give the company the opportunity to either update it or withdraw.

Allen: I’m certainly open to supporting some of these projects in the future. I just feel like I don’t have a whole lot of information. If there’s project documents that go with something like this that kind of explains it, that would be really helpful for me to have.

Superintendent Reports:

• PreK Registration 2/23-3/20

• Columbia County Student Art Show

  • March 3-30

  • Opening Reception, March 3

• End of Third Nine Weeks, March 10

• School Board Appreciation Week, March 9-13

• Columbia County College and Career Expo, March 12

• Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences, March 13

• Student Holiday/District Professional Learning Day, March 16

• Columbia County School District Foundation Top Golf Event, March 16

• Report Cards, March 18

• Special Olympics, March 27

• PreK Drawing, March 30

• Spring Break April 6-13

• Rising 6th Grade Student and Parent Night, April 16

• Progress Reports, April 21

• Arts of the Plaza, April 25

Personnel Recommendations: Approve Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: 6:53 pm

Next Meeting Regular Session: March 10, 2026

What stood out to me wasn’t any one comment. It was the quiet tug-of-war underneath the whole conversation: How much is a school board member supposed to question, push, demand, and debate? And at what point does that stop being oversight and start becoming obstruction, or micromanagement?

When I first started attending school board meetings in 2024, the board voted unanimously on everything. There was very little visible disagreement. Meetings were efficient and mostly celebratory. You didn’t see extended debate. You didn’t see much friction. It was like the opening credits of The Lego Movie….”Everything is Awesome” playing in an endless loop.

Since 2025 though, there’s been more questioning, more requests for information, more back-and-forth… And yeah, a heck of a lot more drama.

To be clear, I don’t think questioning the system is inherently bad. Public boards should not function as rubber stamps. Scrutiny and oversight are important. However, this training made something else clear: scrutiny and disagreement without structure can strain an institution very quickly.

Georgia law (OCGA 20-2-61) is fairly direct about how local boards are supposed to operate. A school board sets policy. The superintendent implements it. Both are supposed to focus on student achievement. Individual board members do not have authority as independent elected officials. They only have authority when acting as part of the board as a whole. At the same time though, the law explicitly protects a board member’s ability to request and review financial information. Board members are also tasked with holding the superintendent accountable, but with the very strong caveat…. without micromanaging.

That design naturally creates tension. On one hand, a school board member elected by voters may feel obligated to publicly question, request information, and debate issues thoroughly. On the other hand, Georgia law envisions a collective governing body acting in unison on behalf of a non-voting constituency — students. Both instincts can come from a genuine desire to serve, but they don’t always coexist easily.

Much of the training focused on draft board norms and protocols. There was a huge discussion around agenda-setting authority and the scope of “board items” that have been taken off as an agenda item. That may sound procedural, but it goes to the core of governance. Control of the agenda determines what becomes public debate and what does not.

Some members expressed concern that individual board items were drifting into operational matters or into specific parent complaints that fall outside the board’s policymaking role. Georgia law draws a distinction between setting policy and managing day-to-day administration. When that boundary blurs, accusations of micromanagement surface quickly. The discussion also touched on the risk of referencing individual family situations in public meetings, even without explicitly naming them. Protecting privacy while maintaining transparency is another line boards must navigate carefully.

At the same time though, there is a legitimate concern that agenda authority should not be used to avoid debate altogether. It’s my understanding that in most school boards, the chair works with the superintendent to develop the draft agenda, but the board ultimately votes to adopt it. One challenge is not whether debate should occur, but how to ensure that debate remains tethered to policy rather than individual cases or administrative details.

In a collective body, a decision not to move forward with an agenda item is still a decision. If a majority declines to add an item or does not support amending the agenda, that reflects the will of the board. Continuing to argue the threshold question of whether something should even be discussed can prolong conflict before debate on substance ever begins.

The facilitator also mentioned something that doesn’t always get said out loud: effective school board governance assumes a basic dedication to public education itself. Boards may disagree on policy, but they operate under the premise that members are working to strengthen, not dismantle, the institution they oversee. In today’s climate, that assumption is also under strain.

In recent years, local school boards have increasingly become arenas for broader political debates. Issues that once remained administrative now carry ideological weight. That shift has changed not only what boards debate, but how they debate it. When national political narratives enter local boards, trust becomes harder to maintain. Members may begin to question not just each other’s arguments, but each other’s motives. Without at least a baseline assumption of good faith, governance slows down or hardens into tribalistic factions.

One area where this tension has become especially visible in our board is financial oversight. Fiscal transparency is a core duty of any governing board. However, in complex matters such as bond issuance, certain projections and amortization schedules are not immediately available, and compiling additional layers of documentation can require significant staff time. When requests become increasingly burdensome or extend beyond what is necessary for the specific vote before the board, it can strain administrative capacity and delay implementation of decisions voters have already approved.

Oversight is essential. However, governance also requires proportionality. Not every vote requires every conceivable data point, and not every unanswered question justifies indefinite delay. Boards often must act on the best information reasonably available at the time. The line between rigorous accountability and operational paralysis is not always bright, and disagreement about where that line sits can also quickly fuel distrust.

There is also a philosophical divide over how controversial issues should be handled. Some believe addressing difficult topics quietly and discreetly prevents unnecessary political escalation, as well as protects the district from becoming a spectacle. I get that. Public education has been under sustained attack nationally, and no superintendent or board wants endless culture-war headlines.

However, avoiding open discussion does not eliminate conflict. It simply changes where the conflict lives and where it is discussed. Decisions made behind closed doors on matters families care deeply about may reduce immediate controversy, but they often create long-term suspicion. When trust erodes, it fuels the very backlash leaders were trying to avoid in the first place, and it becomes a festering wound in the community. I will always believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

If difficult decisions are going to be made, they should be made openly, debated publicly, and voted on clearly. We can agree or disagree. That is how public governance is supposed to work.

Which brings me to something surprisingly simple: Robert’s Rules of Order.

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel here, folks. The board already says it uses it. If a board member wants to pursue something, the language shouldn’t be “Would this board be willing to…?” It should be: “I make a motion to…” Another member seconds it, or they don’t. If no one seconds the motion, that’s the answer. The board, as a body, does not wish to take it up. There’s no need for prolonged argument about whether it should even be discussed. Further, it will be on the official minutes that a motion was made and there was no second.

If the motion is seconded, debate follows. Amendments can be offered. Motions can be tabled or referred back to staff for a more detailed report later. Discussion and debate can be limited in time. Remarks must remain pertinent to the motion on the floor. Then the board votes. Following that structure might feel like herding cats at times, but it protects both scrutiny and efficiency. It prevents rubber-stamping. It also prevents school board meetings from drifting into open-ended hours-long political theater. Nobody wants to sit through a 4-hour filibuster at 6 pm on a Tuesday night. (If anybody needs a refresher on Robert’s Rules, I like this guide at our public library.)

Now, let’s be honest. Learning Robert’s Rules isn’t going to magically fix the trust issues on this board. There is no fairy godmother to “bibbidi bobbidi boo” this situation. However having a shared process, and actually sticking to it, would at least keep disagreements from turning into free-for-alls.

School board elections in Georgia are nonpartisan by design. That doesn’t mean members lack political beliefs. We all have them. I do too. I’m a Democrat and serve as Treasurer of the local Democratic Committee, and I lead the Freedom to Read Coalition of Columbia County. Showing up, speaking, and advocating is part of democracy. However, once someone is elected to a school board, their role shifts. The statutory framework envisions a unified policymaking body focused on students. A school board cannot function as a rubber stamp, but it also cannot function as five separate political stages.

The answer to internal conflict isn’t less debate though. It’s having a better-structured debate. Debate without guardrails magnifies distrust, whereas disciplined debate clarifies policy. The difference between those two outcomes is not ideology, it’s structure.

Georgia law is clear on the roles of the board, superintendent, and individual members. The tools and processes already exist to manage conflict. The real question is whether the board will lean into that structure, and whether every member is willing to operate within it, even when it’s uncomfortable.

School boards are made up of adults, but the work is for students. How conflict is handled is crucial. Modeling how to disagree, how to follow rules, how to accept outcomes, and how to move forward without personalizing every disagreement isn’t just good governance, it’s part setting an example for those very students who are supposed to be the focus.

In a moment when our discourse is highly polarized and trust is thin, that example may matter just as much as any policy vote.

The next school board Working Meeting is February 24, 2026 at 4781 Hereford Farm Rd at 5:30 pm. I hope to see you there.

Facilitator: Phil Hartley, Georgia School Boards Association
GSBA Counsel: Lauren Atkinson (first in-house General Counsel)

District Leadership Present:
Superintendent Dr. Flynt, Administrative Assistant: Amanda Moody
Board members: Chairman Dekle, Vice Chairman Kent, Kristi Baker, Judy Teasley, Katie Allen
Board Attorneys Larry Fletcher and Will Fletcher

Training Focus

Governance roles, legal framework, and board operating norms.

Key topics included:

• Roles and responsibilities of the Board vs. Superintendent

• State governance standards

• Local norms and protocols

• Collaboration expectations

• Communication practices

• Student achievement

Facilitator Background

Phil Hartley: Approximately 52 years representing school boards

Lauren Atkinson: Newly appointed GSBA General Counsel

Governance Standards (State)

• Developed by the State Board of Education

• Not formal rules

• Used as guidance for board training

• Recently amended to include a safety standard

Norms & Protocols (Local)

• Working agreement between board and superintendent

• Not formal policy

• Describes how members function together

• May vary by district

• Not required to be adopted annually

• Often reviewed when membership changes

Board did not adopt a new document for the 2025–2026 school year. Document used as a starting point for communication and engagement.

Statutory Role of the Board

(O.C.G.A. § 20-2-61 referenced)

Core Responsibilities

Establish Policy

Includes:

• Strategic plan

• Budget priorities

• Hiring superintendent

• District goals

Policy described as broad.

Focus on Student Achievement

• Students identified as the board’s primary constituency

Hold Superintendent Accountable Without Micromanaging

• Board sets direction, Superintendent implements

• Board evaluates performance

Act as a Collective Body

• Individual members have no independent authority

• Actions occur only as the board as a whole

• “Individual power — none.”

Governance Expectations

Collaboration

• Board should not operate as separate individuals

• Collaboration required despite disagreements

• Majority decision represents official board action

After a Vote

• Members may state disagreement but are expected to move forward with the board decision, and not relitigate past decisions.

  • “Once decision made… move on.”

Information and Decision-Making

• Board should receive information in advance

• Members should have equal access to information

• Information requests may require board action

• Informal circulation of information discouraged

Information Requests

Discussion addressed how board members obtain information from staff and the impact of extensive requests.

• Concern raised that requests from a single board member for detailed information can be burdensome to staff.

• It was stated that some requests may require significant staff time to compile and produce.

Points mentioned:

• The requested information was not readily available in the format requested.

• Producing the information could require multiple staff members working for several days.

• Concern expressed about responding to a request made by one individual rather than the board as a whole.

It was stated that fulfilling certain requests could be disruptive to district operations.

Discussion included possible approaches:

• If a request is considered excessive, the superintendent could bring the issue to the full board for direction.

• Consideration of whether extensive requests should require approval or support from additional board members.

It was also noted that board members need access to information to make informed decisions. No formal action or decision was recorded.

Trust and Board Dynamics

Issues identified as damaging:

• Poor communication

• Lack of trust

• Re-litigation of prior decisions in public

• Surprises at meetings

• Personal agendas

Use of formal procedures emphasized.

“No Surprises” Principle

• Surprises at meetings described as harmful to trust and governance relationships.

• Applies to both board members and superintendent.

Chain of Command

Board members advised to route concerns through the superintendent.

Examples discussed:

• Parent complaints

• Staff concerns

• Operational matters

• Crisis situations

Board members should not intervene directly at school level.

Student Matters

• Individual student issues handled by administration

• Board should not discuss student matters publicly

• Anonymous discussion may still raise privacy concerns

Example given: disciplinary matters. Prior involvement by a board member could require recusal if the issue later comes before the board.

Public Communication

Board members encouraged to:

• Direct stakeholders to appropriate administrative channels

• Avoid speaking on behalf of the board

• Avoid speculating about other members’ intentions

• Maintain confidentiality

Social Media

• District communications should be led by designated staff

• Comments by members reflect on the board

• Controversial topics can escalate quickly

• Members advised to avoid inflammatory or disrespectful dialogue

School Visits

Members asked to coordinate visits with the superintendent.

Reasons:

• Prevent disruption to school operations

• Ensure administrators are informed

• Clarify whether visit is official or personal

Relationship with School District’s Attorneys

• Attorney represents the school system, not individual members

• Most communication occurs through superintendent

• Direct contact by individual members can create complications

Executive session attorney conferences generally related to litigation or claims.

Training Session vs. Board Meeting

Training sessions described as meetings that are primarily informational.

• Discussion allowed

• Formal action typically not taken

Strategic Plan

Board encouraged to align agendas with strategic goals and student outcomes.

Agenda Structure — “Board Items”

Board discussed a previous agenda item titled “Board Items.” Katie Allen stated the section had been used to bring forward constituent concerns and community feedback. Chairman Dekle stated the section had functioned like an “open mic.”

Concerns noted:

• Topics introduced without prior notice

• Board and staff unprepared to address issues

• Members surprised by items raised during meetings

Vice Chairman Kent stated the public expects to see disagreement and discussion during board meetings and that some debate is expected.

Community Concerns

Facilitator discussed how to evaluate whether an issue represents broader community concern.

Issues described as community-wide typically:

• Reach multiple board members

• Reach school administrators

• Reach the superintendent

• Are raised by multiple individuals

• Come through multiple channels

Issues raised by only one or two individuals may not represent broader community sentiment. Discussion noted that concerns often move through administrative channels before reaching the board.

Management of Discussion

• Limiting discussion during meetings mentioned as a possible approach.

• No formal procedural changes were adopted

Norms & Protocols — Enforcement

Discussion addressed the current norms and procedures document, including whether revisions should be made during the training session and whether the document includes enforcement mechanisms.

Chairman Dekle questioned the usefulness of spending time revising the document given the lack of an enforcement mechanism.

Kent asked the facilitator whether the existing board protocols document was missing elements or contained too much compared to those used in other districts.

The facilitator stated there was nothing glaring about the document. The norms document was described as guidance for behavior rather than binding rules.

Invocation: First Mt. Carmel Baptist Church Pastor Rosco Perry

Pledge of Allegiance: Lewiston Elementary School 4H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen)

Special Recognition

• Georgia CyberPatriot State Competition Winners

  • Greenbrier Middle School - 1st Place

    • Emma Jo Harper

    • Isaac Lee

    • Mason Rice

    • Isaac Welton

    • Elliot Yoo

    • James Youmans

  • Greenbrier Middle School - 2nd Place

    • Tarik Kalelioglu

    • Sunrudh Medam

    • Josiah Rudolph

    • Tobias Shoemaker

    • Gideon Son

    • Jairus Tutu

  • Grovetown High School - 1st Place

    • Deion Jackson-Henriquez

    • Caleb Johnson

    • Basu Khadka

    • Jonathan Romero, Jr.

• Georgia Junior Beta Club Stte Competition

  • Blue Ridge Elementarys

    • Raghav Thumsi - 1st Place, Spelling

    • Musicology - 3rd Place Team

      • Adelie Baker

      • Athena Cronin

      • Happiness Messan

      • Margaret Roberson

      • Ward Walker

      • Hannah Wimmer

  • Stevens Creek Elementary

    • Vivek Ravel - 2nd Place, Social Studies

  • Evans High School

    • Lillian Miller-Loftin - 2nd Place - Solo, Duo, Trio Vocalist

  • Greenbrier High School

    • Blake Sommers - 3rd Place, Visual Arts Drawing

  • Harlem High School

    • Devin Curtis - 1st Place, Painting Division I

    • Jessica Servin - 3rd Place, Pottery Division II

    • Book Battle Team, 3rd Place

      • Julia Hingle

      • Autumn LaFrance

      • Sophia Middleton

      • Christina VanVoorhis

Board Comments and Acknowledgements: Board members thanked the Reverand, told the 4H Presidents they were proud of their them and their leadership. All the students and parents were congratulated for their accomplishments. Allen thanked the advisors for their guidance. Kent acknowledge the sponsors/partnerships on the CyberPatriot T-shirts and expressed appretiation for all of the community partnerships.

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

1. 1/27/2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes

2. Fundraisers

3. Employee Travel

4. Program/Camp/Employee Participation Requests

5. Lease/Use of Facilities

Permissive Transfer Summary

Superintendent Reports

1. School Year Update for 2025-2026

2. Presidents’ Day Holiday, Feb 16

3. Pre-K Registration 2/23 - 3/10: At zoned school

4. End of Third Nine Week: 3/10/2026

5. Columbia County College and Career Expo, 3/13/2026

6. Student Holiday/ District Professional Learning Day, 3/16/2026

7. Columbia County School District Foundation Top Golf Event, 3/16/2026

8. TAP Talk, 3/18/2026

9. Report Cards, 3/18/2026

10. Pre-K Drawing, 3/30/2026

11. Spring Break 4/6-4/13

12. Progress Reports, 4/21

13. Arts at the Plaza, 4/25

Public Participation

• Diane Jarrett

• Karin Parham

• Great Neuman

• Cara Parker

Executive Session:

• Affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: Yay 5, No 0

Next Work Session Board Meeting: 2/24/2026

Invocation: Martinez Baptist Church Minister of Outreach Reverend Perry Ky

Pledge of Allegiance: Stevens Creek Elementary 4H Presidents

Special Recognitions

• Georgia-American Choral Directors Association

  • Grovetown Middle School Chorus Teacher: Victoria Alvarez

• Georgia Music Educators Association

  • Greenbrier HS Band Teachers: Dr. Brian Toney & Rutledge Boykin

  • Blue Ridge ES Music Teacher: Brittany Swann

  • Grovetown MS Chorus Teacher: Victoria Alvarez

• Georgia Department of Education Literacy & Math Leader Schools

  • Literacy

    • Cedar Ridge ES: 3rd & 4th Grade Growth

    • Greenbrier ES: 3rd & 5th Grade Achievement

    • North Harlem ES: 3rd Grade Growth

    • Lakeside MS: 6th Grade Growth

    • Stallings Island MS: 6th Grade Growth

  • Math

    • Baker Place ES: 5th Grade Growth

    • Evans ES: 5th Grade Growth

    • Greenbrier ES: 3rd & 5th Grade Growth

    • Lewiston ES: 3rd & 5th Grade Growth

    • Martinez ES: 5th Grade Growth

    • North Harlem ES: 5th Grade Growth

    • Columbia MS: 8th Grade & High School Growth

    • Evans MS: 8th Grade Growth & High School Growth & High School Achievement

    • Greenbrier MS: 7th & 8th Grade Growth, High School Achievement & High School Growth

    • Grovetown MS: High School Growth

    • Riverside MS: 7th & 8th Grade Growth

    • Stallings Island MS: High School Growth

    • Harlem MS: 7th & 8th Grade Growth, High School Growth

Board Comments: Board members expressed gratitude for all of the hard work of the district, thanked 4H for leading pledge and the Reverend for the invocation.

Approval of Consent Items: Item B was pulled from consent for discussion. Approved A, C-G: Yay 5, No 0

A. 1/13/2026 Regular session meeting minutes

C. Budget Amendment

D. Fundraisers

E. Employee Travel

F. Program/Camp/Employer Participation Request

G. Lease/Use of Facilities

December Financials: Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Katie Allen: I noticed that we had added the 2027-2032 splost chart on here. Because we approved those bonds, I just wanted to ask. I see that the bond proceeds is at around $193.3 billion under the revenue and then under the debt, the principal and interest associated with that bond is about $64.8 million. So if my calculations are correct, that puts around $217 million remaining to be repaid for that bond over into futures losses. Right? That’s not documented on this financial report anywhere. Which financial document shows kind of a running debt total for all of our bonds?

Alex Casado: The best place for that would be the financial statements through the liabilities.

Katie Allen: As a board, are we good with only accounting for $64.8 million of that bond debt, even as we’re claiming 193.3 million of the proceeds within this loss and putting the rest of that into future spots? Or is there a way we want to start keeping that in our financials, where we’re looking at how we’re going to be paying that off?

Chairman Dekle: If you want that information, you can ask for it at any time. You don’t even have to wait for a meeting or work session. You can ask for that anytime. I don’t see any reason for us to change the way that we present our monthly financials. Does anyone else?

Philip Kent: Alex, how often are you tracking that? I think that’d be helpful for everybody to know that.

Alex Casado: So you’re only making debt payments twice a year. It doesn’t change daily or monthly even. It only changes twice a year.

Judy Teasley: And it’s only reported at that time, right?

Alex Casado: It will be reported on the financial reports but not necessarily here. That would be a separate request.

Katie Allen: Katie Allen: That’s more of a board question than an Alex question, because I know, Alex is more than happy to draw whatever financial reports we ask as a board. Do we want to start monitoring that every month to have a visual of what our collective bond debt is and how we’re looking at that each year, every five years, how many slots we’re looking into as far as paying that amount off? Because it almost seems like the way I saw this report, why I wanted to ask, is it seems like even as we’re claiming the full proceeds and putting it into our budget to use, in addition to the sales tax of the splost, we’re only accounting under the liability, the expenditure aspect of it, an incremental amount of the payments and then that pushes the majority of the payments into the future and out of sight for us. And so is there a way that we can maybe account for, even though in this five year period we’re only budgeting 64.8 million in principal and interest payments because that’s what’s due in the five years, if we’re going to be using the bond proceeds, 103 million plus the sales tax proceeds, 235.4 million. And putting all of that together in a spending plan, it seems like we’re spending all the bonds proceeds in five years, but not really having a full plan and paying back the full amount of the principal and interest payments. So is there a way we want to keep our eyes on that or is that something that we’ll deal with in 2032 during the next splost?

Chairman Dekle: I don’t think we need to change anything. I think the CFO is keeping an eye on it and he’ll report to us.

Board Policy JAA, Equal Educational Opportunities. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Discussion Topics and Presentations:

• Inspire School Spotlight, Steve Cummings

  • Greenbrier High School: Chip Fulmer (Principal) , Stephanie Fry, Andrea Smock

    • Greenbrier High School reported strong academic and extracurricular outcomes driven by a collaborative, accountability-focused culture. They pointed to expanded AP participation, pathway completion, and industry-aligned instruction, which is supported by schoolwide CER writing, data-informed teaching, and career-focused programs, as key factors behind rising achievement and success in athletics, STEM, and workforce certifications.

• Budget & Legislative Outlook, Alex Casado

  • District preparing FY26–27 budget. Stable state funding but rising employee benefit costs

  • Legislative session began January 12; governor proposed a $2,000 teacher stipend pending approval, which could affect the FY26 amended budget and FY27 planning

  • Budget will be adjusted as needed to align with any state funding amendments

  • TRS employer contribution increasing from 21.91% to 22.32%, adding roughly $1 million

  • Health insurance premiums rising 7.5%, increasing employer costs by about $4 million annually; health costs have doubled over four years

  • About 70–80% of employees are state-funded, offsetting roughly 70% of benefit increases through state revenue

  • Net local impact of benefit increases exceeds $1 million

  • Revenue mix is approximately 60% state QBE funding and 40% local taxes

  • Current millage rate is 16.234 mills, lower than prior years

  • Net tax digest grew 46.57% over five years, with strong collection rates (95–98%)

  • State per-pupil expenditure is $12,155 per FTE, ranking Columbia County 7th lowest in Georgia, up from $11,546 in FY24

  • Budget timeline: full presentation April 21; public input meetings April 28 and May 12; tentative approval in May; final approval June 16

  • District monitoring legislative developments but anticipating funding levels similar to last year

Annual Audit Review

• Independent audit. Strong financial controls and full compliance, with no significant findings

• Auditor John Snyder issued clean opinion, confirming accurate financial reporting and adherence to accounting standards

• Audit covered government-wide and fund-level statements, including detailed disclosures of long-term liabilities and bond schedules through 2037

• No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies identified in internal controls or federal program compliance

• New GASB requirement added liabilities for unused sick leave, incorporated after coordination with district finance staff and noted in audit.

• Audit process allows for minor corrections prior to final issuance and timely communication with board leadership if larger issues arise

• In response to Katie Allen’s question about a schedule, Mr. Snyder clarified that splost project cost reporting: $160 million reflects the voter-approved cap, while $313.5 million represents updated total project estimates including change orders

  • Difference in figures is a legal accounting distinction, not an error, and requires context to avoid misunderstanding

Staff Reports

• Behavior and Discipline Update, Penny Jackson

  • District reports a firm but supportive approach to student behavior, with heightened attention to threat assessment and drug-related offenses

  • Over 99% of students consistently make positive choices

  • Drug-related incidents have increased, driven largely by THC vape use

  • Alcohol-related incidents, fighting, and disorderly conduct have declined

  • Vape detectors have led to higher detection and enforcement of vaping violations

  

  

  

  

  

  • Progressive discipline is used, ranging from detention to suspension

  • Disciplinary hearings have increased, particularly for drug offenses and reentry cases

  • District uses a Behavior Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) process, required under House Bill 268

  • Threat levels are classified from unfounded to high, with structured documentation of concerns and histories

  • Multidisciplinary teams (administrators, SROs, counselors, special education staff) coordinate responses

  • High-risk cases move to formal hearings with documented evidence and due process

  • Academic dishonesty has increased, including plagiarism and AI-assisted cheating

  • District is monitoring AI use and developing classroom policies and guidance

  • Technology presents both new cheating risks and improved detection tools

  • Ongoing teacher training and student instruction emphasize appropriate technology use

  • Communication with parents is prioritized, especially for repeat or disruptive behavior

  • Administrators emphasize due process, evidence-based decisions, and early reporting to prevent escalation

• Special Education Update, LeAnne Gregg and Sharard Pritchett

  • District continuing to expand special education supports through training, leadership, and staffing strategies

  • Ongoing professional development for special education staff, including exemplary IEP training and leadership forums

  • Focus on improving instruction, compliance, and behavior supports

  • Monthly cluster meetings and newsletters used to share resources and maintain communication across schools

  • Upcoming events: Transition Resource Fair (Feb 28) and Special Education Olympics (Mar 27)

  • FY26–27 budget includes incentives and release time for special education teachers to collaborate on planning and data collection

  • Each school will have a dedicated Special Education Department Chair with no classroom teaching duties

    • Department Chair role centers on staff support, coaching, and compliance oversight

    • New leadership structure intended to strengthen instructional quality and service delivery

  • Consultant Paula Everett continues to support compliance and program improvements following a needs assessment

    • Katie Allen asked how long she had been working with district. Since the needs assessment was done in Fall 2023.

  • Program effectiveness monitored through state complaint trends and ongoing training

    • Katie Allen also inquired about tracking complaints over the past 10 years through both State and Federal. Pritchett responded that State complaints are inevitable, part of the parent’s advocacy rights, and that State will say if district is compliant or non-compliant.

  • Parent input gathered through surveys and resource fairs

    • District will distribute a survey soon to all special needs parents.

  • District plans to improve communication channels and respond more quickly to parent concerns

• Staffing Update, Tony Wright (HR)

  • Human Resources projects a student enrollment decline of approximately 300 students next year

    

  • Staffing will be aligned using weighted student allocations that prioritize student needs over raw enrollment

  • Weighted staffing has increased overall staff levels despite declining enrollment

  • Approach helps maintain or reduce class sizes and better support ESOL and special education populations

  • Hiring for the 2026–27 school year will prioritize special education and other high-need areas

  • Schools will receive enrollment and staffing projections soon to develop site-based staffing plans

  • Enrollment decline largely driven by lower kindergarten cohorts following COVID

  • No significant shifts expected in other student categories

  • Enrollment projections based on both internal district data and McKibben & Associates

Building Program Project Update:

• Lakeside HS: New Media Center, Cafeteria/Kitchen in use. Gym - steel is placed

• Evans HS: Roofs on. Move in start this summer. New gym/cafeteria ready at start of next school year.

• Harlem HS: Site Work Started

  • Katie Allen asked if there was a plan for the traffic. She had concerns about the number of traffic accidents.

  • Changes to the flow of traffic with construction helped to get vehicles off the road.

• Greenbrier HS: Architect should have designs soon. Katie Allen asked for copies of the contract payer request to be emailed to her.

Upcoming Dates:

• Progress Reports, 2/5/2026

• Career, Technical and Agriculture Education Workforce Showcase and Competition, 2/6/2026

• Presidents’ Day Holiday, 2/16/2026

• Pre-K Registration, 2/23/2026 - 3/20/2026

• End of 3rd Nine Weeks, 3/10/2026

• Columbia County College and Career Expo, 3/12/2026

• Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences, 3/13/2026

• Student Holiday/District Professional Learning Day, 3/16/2026

• Columbia County School District Foundation Top Golf Even, 3/16/2026

• Report Cards, 3/18/2026

• Pre-K Drawing, 3/30/2026

Approval of Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: Yay 5, No 0 Approximately 8:30 pm

Next Meeting: Regular Session 2/10/2026 at 5:30 PM 4781 Hereford Farm Road, Evans GA

Invocation: Powell Baptist Church Senior Pastor Dr. Nick Bates

Pledge of Allegiance: North Columbia Elemntary School 4-H Presidents

Approval of Agenda:Yay 4, (There was no call for opposed but Ms. Allen did not raise her hands to approve the agenda)

Selection of Vice-Chairman:

• Phil Kent. Approval: Yay 5, No 0

Selection of Columbia County School District Foundation Trustee:

• Judy Teasley. Approval: Yay 5, No 0

Approval of Board Attorney:

• Mr. Fletcher: Yay 5, No 0

Approval of Board Meeting Dates and Times for 2026: Yay 5, No 0

Annual Board Requirements: Approve a, b, d: Yay 5, No 0

a. Board Policy BH, Code of Ethics

b. Board Policy BHA, Conflict of Interest

c. BoardNorms and Protocols (Tabled Until later discussion. Yay 5, No 0)

d. Whole Board Training

Special Recognition:

• Greenbrier HS Girls Flag Football Division II 3x Back-to-Back State Champions

  • Chloe Ackley

  • Peyton Anderson

  • Jayla Ayler

  • Arianna Boone

  • Darcy Bridwell

  • Libby Brooker

  • Emma Bryant

  • Sophie Campanaro

  • Reese Caraway

  • Sloan Carrillo

  • Jadyn Carter

  • Bailey Chauvin

  • Jordan Harvey

  • Finley Jones

  • Lexi Lacey

  • Murphy Larkin

  • Abby Lester

  • Katherine McDonald

  • Carrington Meyers

  • Kinsley Mitchell

  • Addisen Odom

  • Andersen Odom

  • Mamie Cate Pangle

  • Aaliyah Silver

  • Riley Stanford

  • Hailey Valentino

  • Head Coach - James Smith

  • Asst. Coaches: Emily Flynt, Jeremy Gantt, Wes Marshall, Shane Pangle

  • Principal - Chip Fulmer

  • Athletic Director - Jason Osborn

Board Comments and acknowledgements: All board members mentioned how proud they were of the Greenbrier HS Girls Flag Football Team, and that they look forward to seeing them again next year. They also said they were proud of the 4-H Presidents and thanked the pastor for the invocation.

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

• 12/9/2025 Regular Meeting Minutes

• November Financials

• Budget Amendment and Transfers

• Fundraisers

• Employee Travel

• Program/Camp/Employee Participation Request

• Lease/Use of Facilities

Board Policy JAA, Equal Educational Opportunities

• Flynt: Added a section to include the use of service animals. Attached exhibits so parents know how to apply. Included this for approval for next meeting so can look it over.

Building Program Bid Results:

Low Bidder: AdaptToSolve: $530,732.16. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Allen: Had a question about if the cameras stored Data?

Flynt: These are replacement cameras. The existing cameras no longer meet federal/State requirements.

VanMeter: These are old, 1st Gen. Made in China so banned. These new ones will be ready for AI down the road.

Allen: So these will have facial recognition, required by the State?

Van meter: AI will definitely be used in the future. This bid amount doesn’t include the installation.

Kent: So these are made by Korea?

VanMeter: Yes, these new ones are made in Korea. The existing ones we’re replacing are 8-10 years old.

Teasley: Will these be for both interior and exterior?

VanMeteer: Yes, and these will give us changes to views to because some are 360. The existing ones might only go 90 degrees, but news are 360. These will all be on the network

Allen: Expressed concern about the software and AI data collection, and said that the board might want to discuss this in more depth later. Asked which company the district uses as a 3rd party.

Van meter: The district uses a 3rd party to make sure they are in compliance but didn’t want to state the name of the company during the public meeting but said he would let her know after the meeting.

Superintendent Reports:

• School Year Update for 2025—2026

• Permissive Transfer Application Period, 1/14-2/6

• Rising Freshmen Night for Students and Parents, 1/15

• MLK Jr Holiday, 1/19

• CCSD Spelling Bee, 1/22 4:30 pm Greenbrier Middle School

• Columbia County Health Careers Expo, 1/23

• Progress Reports, 2/5

• Career, Technical and Agriculture Education Workforce Showcase and Competition, 2/6

• President’s Day Holiday, 2/16

• PreK Registration, 2/23-3/20

• Columbia County College and Career Expo, 3/12

• Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences, 3/13

• Student Holiday/District Professional Learning Day, 3/16

• CCSD Foundation Top Golf Event, 3/16

• TAP Talks, 3/18

• Report Cards, 3/18

• Pre-K Drawing, 3/30

Public Participation:

• Karin Parham

• Cara Parker

• Brenda Heideman

Executive Session:

• Affidavit: Yay 5, No 0

• Property Easements: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel Sheet: Yay 5, No 0

Adjournment: Yay 5, No 0

Next work session meeting is 1/27/2026.

Invocation: West Acres Baptist Church Student Pastor Keaton Neff

Pledge of Allegiance: Grovetown Elementary School 4-H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: (I know it was approved but I got distracted and missed if it was unanimous or if Katie Allen opposed again)

Special Recognitions

1. GHSA Cross Country 5A State Championship:

   

   Board Comments:

   Kent congratulated Lilliana and thanked the pastor for the invocation.

   Teasley thanked the 5th-grade 4H leaders for leading the pledge, expressed appreciation for the invocation, and praised Lilliana Beemer, noting her accomplishments and confidence they’d see her again.

   Allen thanked the pastor for the blessing during the invocation and encouraged everyone to keep up the good work.

   Baker thanked the 4H leaders and the parents for keeping students involved; wished everyone a Merry Christmas; and asked Lilliana about her training—she reported running about 50 miles per week.

   Dekle thanked the school district for assisting with their capstone presentation for the Excellence in Governance program at the retreat

Approval of Consent Items: Yay 5, No 0

• 11/18/2025 Minutes, Regular Session Meeting

• October Financials

• Budget Amendment

• Fundraisers

• Employee Travel

• Program/Camp/Employee Participation Request

• Lease/use of facilities

Board Policies

1. Board Policy IF, Instructional Resources. Approval: Yay 5, No 0

   Flynt: Added additional language in Paragraphs 2 & 3 for data

   Allen: 10 & 11. In 10 it says each parent is provided the policy. Then on 11, it’s by request?

   Gregg: #10 refers to the code of conduct. #11 is the whole process for student enforcement, and would be available upon request.

2. Board Policy KHE, Gifts to Schools. Approval: Yay 5, No 0

   Flynt: We added books to the gift policy

   Allen: Is there a different policy for gifts in general or something more specific?

   Gregg: GBE covers gifts to personnel. This is gift to schools

Building Program

• Project updates

  1. Evans High School: Batting cages damaged in hurricane fixed. Other parts of renovation moving along.

  2. Lakeside High School: Steel erected for gym

     1. Ms. Jackson - Student Movement: Renovations to he current commons area and hallway to new science rooms will be renovated starting 12/26/2025 until end of summer. This will make it difficult during transitions to move from PAC side to the other side. They will be transitioning outside. They are looking into a type of temporary separate tunnel but it would be difficult to do and meet all necessary fire/safety code. She will have a bigger update at the beginning of January.

• Bid Results

  • 11/18 Asphalt paving Lewiston Elementary School: Approve: Yay 5, No 0

    1. All Star Concrete $324,790

Harlem High School GNP. Approve: Yay 4, No 1 (Katie Allen)

The following exchange is not an exact transcript but it’s close.

Allen: I do have a few points of clarification, as I’m learning this process, so I just ask that the board be patient and not call the question until I work through a few of these things, because I would like to join this vote. Just, again, to clarify as I’m learning about this process: contractors bid on this project in December 2024, is that correct?

Flynt: I have in my board notes that we received proposals from firms in December 2022. They didn’t bid on the cost of the project at that time. What they were doing was giving us information about how they would conduct the construction process, who would be involved, how they would do all that, and then telling us about other projects they were involved in. We had a process to select the firm. Ultimately, in this project, Carroll Daniel was the one that came out with the highest rating, and they were approved in January 2025.

Allen: So, it says, based on the scoring of the committee – and this is from our building program folder, so we all have a copy of this – it says the final ranking of the proposed CMR firms is: Carroll Daniel Construction, Winter Construction, JE Dunn Construction. Interviews were conducted on January 15, 2025. So is this that matrix-based process that we used?

Flynt: Yes, but they’re not bidding on the cost yet. They’re bidding on being the construction firm – the construction manager at risk – to participate as our construction partner.

Allen: So what were some of the factors that were used in that formula to determine the ranking? I mean, was part of that price? Because I know we’ve been told with Turner & Townsend that 30% of that matrix was cost-based, so was cost part of this analysis in choosing Carroll Daniel?

Flynt: Not from them. We provided them our cost estimates, which are obviously moving, and will move until they get all their bids in. But we do our best to try to give the best estimate. They don’t provide the project cost at selection. There’s a lot that goes into that selection. That selection has already been approved and made. Past projects, superintendent qualifications, all of that would be part of their bid to become the firm. So you’re right: we tell them, “Here’s our cost estimate,” but they don’t actually put down a firm cost for what they’re going to do the project for as part of this selection process.

Allen: So you’re saying we tell them, “Hey, here’s our budget,” but they don’t actually put a cost down for what they’re going to do the project for as part of this process. That’s right?

Flynt: That’s right. And it’s not exactly our budget, it’s our initial estimate. We do that so they kind of get an idea of where we are. A big part of this project, and one of the reasons that you go with a construction manager at risk, is to make sure that they’re taking on some of that risk. There are a lot of unknowns. We might not do CMR with a brand-new school that you’re just building out of the ground – we kind of know what to expect there. But you don’t when you’re digging up old infrastructure, and these are pretty old schools.

In this case, once we hire them, they go out and do estimates along the way. That is how we’re able to revise our estimates, because they’re getting subcontractor proposals in. Ultimately, they have to get a bid for every one of those scopes and then put all those together. They have to be vetted by us as well as the project management team. Then we make that decision, we select them, and we sign this document that we approved as a board in January – but that’s not yet the GMP contract with them.

Allen: This was the AIA document A133-2019 between us and Carroll Daniel, dated January 28th. We voted on this at the January 2025 meeting. Just to make sure I understood your email – this is not a contract, then? Because, to me, it looks like a contract. I just want to, again, try to clarify how this process works.

Flynt: I’ll ask Mr. Beatty to step in.

Mr. Beatty: Yes, this is a contract – but it’s the first step. When you start this process, that document – if you look at it – references $80 million in the budget line item. That’s where you start. When this document is signed, unbeknownst to any of us, we don’t even know the full scope of the work. We don’t know exactly what we’re doing long-term as far as what’s going to be torn out, what’s going to be left, what new infrastructure is needed.

Once this is done, we create the set of contract documents and you see the plans. We bring them periodically to the superintendent; you see those, you approve those, we take them to the school, they look at them.

By September, we send those to the State Board of Education for review before final approval. The county reviews, makes comments, it comes back, we make final changes.

At that point in time, they’re submitted to the CMR – the construction management firm. They go through everything, they sit down with us, and when we’re ready, they put this project out to bid.

It comes back line-by-line. When you see these line items – all the trade partners – we open those publicly. We look at the numbers there, they’re vetted, we make sure the low bidders in each category meet all the requirements of the contract documents.

Once that’s done, then – and only then – do you actually have the projected cost of what it’s going to be. That becomes the Guaranteed Maximum Price. In this particular case, that number is $94,900,000-and-change.

What happens next: the next document – the one you have as the amendment – is the GMP amendment to that original AIA contract. Every job that’s ever done in this pipeline follows this type of setup.

So yes, the AIA is a contract for services, and the GMP amendment you’re voting on tonight is what fixes the maximum cost.

Allen: So, I just want to clarify: when we choose our CMR, there’s no number in there other than we tell them our estimate, but they don’t commit to any hard numbers. When we’re “bidding” this CMR, we’re not actually bidding the cost of the project that they commit to do it for. Is that correct?

Beatty: Right. When we’re selecting the CMR, they’re proposing their services – their fee, general conditions, their team, their experience – not a fixed project cost. When we open the trade bids, that’s when the actual construction costs are known. Then their fee is applied and we get the GMP.

Allen: All right. And so when our scope changes, because part of the reason why this went from an $80 million budget to now right under $95 million – about a $15 million, 11% increase from this amendment today versus what was approved in January – the reason for that change is because, apparently, a decision was made to move the athletic fields now behind Harlem High School, because we acquired 25 additional acres. So this project’s scope increased and changed significantly. The price increased 11% now with our budget because of that. So, this is now a big, major change in this project. So now, my point is: whether it’s an estimate or a contract, whether they’re bound by it – given the magnitude and the material change of the scope and the budget – why is this not being re-bid with this new information and current information?

Flynt: There’s a lot there. Hang with me on this one. In August, we had a long retreat where we discussed this number, and the updated number was $105 million. As Mr. Beatty said, along the way we’re going to do our best to get the numbers out there, but sometimes that changes.

As y’all know, the last couple of years we’ve seen a lot of inflation. Now, we may not have seen as much on this one. One of the things that we were able to do – and we approved this with the board – was the purchase of the 25 acres.

Even though that was purchased in October, we didn’t know what the cost of that was going to be, or what the full design might look like, or which field we would have to move. The architect got to work on that sometime in the spring of 2025, and that in itself was probably an $8–9 million addition – but it was a worthwhile addition.

It wasn’t a change order or any of that. It was done before we did the final bid. These estimates are moving, and ultimately, in August, we were talking about $105 million on a CMR that currently came in at just under $94 million, which is excellent. Kudos to the teams that put that together.

Allen: So, we can majorly change the scope of the project, increase the budget by 11%, and continue forward, and that does not change the fundamental bidding situation for the other competitors in any way, even though the scope of the project changed to this magnitude?

Flynt: We believe this is the best firm for this project, based on the criteria we used – not just price, but qualifications, past performance, and their understanding of renovation work on older facilities.

If we went back now, we would have to pay them for the work they’ve done up to now, and then start over. It would just be another cost, and the price would almost certainly be higher the next time we got here.

Dekle: It might be helpful to clear up some confusion by explaining the difference between a CMR process and a straight bid process.

In a straight bid, you have multiple general contractors who give you a firm hard bid, you pick the lowest responsible bidder.

In CMR, you’re hiring a construction manager to do it on a cost-plus basis with a guaranteed maximum price. They do all of the work to get the best bids from trade partners; all of that bidding is then vetted by us. That’s probably one of the reasons we got the number down as low as we did.

The number doesn’t happen until this GMP. That’s the proposal for you to approve tonight.

Allen: This method is problematic, because this isn’t just 11% above right now.

Using this method, for example, with Lakeside High School, we apparently did the same process with a $60 million budget, and then by the time the scope of work was determined and we signed for the GMP, that GMP bumped up to $81 million. That’s a 36% increase. So I’m seeing this pattern where we get a CMR, later decide or change the scope of the work, and then our budget changes. And I’m seeing that that’s problematic, and that history probably contributes, in some way, to why we are currently, as of the 2024 financial report, 96% over the original estimated cost of our ESPLOST in total – where we estimated ESPLOST costs at $160 million, and now our current estimated costs as of that financial report are $313 million.

So when I see that we’re having these overages, and these overages are ballooning, and then I’m listening to our process – “We conduct a bidding process, we select a CMR, but then the scope of work substantially changes and our budget increases 11%, 36% in the case of Lakeside” – something’s got to give. To me, this is not the point of a bidding process.

Baker: In the past, we often heard about change orders. When we bid things out traditionally, we’d get change orders throughout. We never really had a fixed picture – the prices always changed and the cost was kind of fluid when we were building projects, right?

And I foresee that when we do a remodeling versus a new school. Even with a new school we had surprises – like when we hit rock that we didn’t foresee, and it ended up costing more money.

So the cost is somewhat changing at times, correct?

Beatty: There will always be some change orders, but the CMR/GMP structure is meant to limit that. The important thing is we’re updating old buildings that were built under old codes – Harlem and Evans from the late 1970s, for example. Over the years we’ve done a lot of patching, but now we’re doing major modernization, and you don’t completely know what you’ll find until you open up the building.

We’ve been very fortunate that our timing and our community support have allowed us to do these projects. The CMR process is one of the tools that helps protect the district and taxpayers as best as we can in a very volatile construction market.

Allen: When was the discussion to put the athletic fields in a new place? I know you said spring of 2025 – which meeting was that where the board discussed and decided?

Because the scope changed in the spring, and I wasn’t aware of it as a board member. So who made that change and allowed that extra $15 million to the budget? Because it wasn’t us – at least not at a board meeting that I recall. So how did that happen?

Flynt: We had multiple discussions, and the main one – we spent a good bit of time on this at the retreat, talking about this. I’ve sent you the slide. It was a slide we used.

We didn’t take a separate vote specifically on “move fields behind the school,” because it’s part of the overall scope of work within the building program that’s already been approved. If you didn’t want it now, we’d have to go back and essentially start over.

Allen: I guess that still doesn’t answer my question. Who decided that this was the way to go? Because the scope changed in the spring and I wasn’t aware of it as a board member. So who made that change and allowed that extra $15 million to the budget? Because it wasn’t us at a board meeting that I recall.

Flynt: Again, we’ve given multiple updates and the main one was at the retreat. That’s when we walked through the updated scope and cost with the additional acreage.

Kent: I’m just trying to understand what direction you’re going. Are you trying to make the argument that this should be re-bid?

Allen: Ultimately, yes. I think that this needs to be re-bid, given the substantial change in scope of the project that occurred after the CMR was chosen – in fairness to the other competitors in the bid, and in fairness to taxpayer dollars.

When we say, “Here’s our project,” and we have contenders in a bidding process who say, “We can do that scope of work with that budget you’re proposing,” and then we rate them and select one based on an $80 million estimate, and later in the spring the scope substantially changes – new fields, new land, 11% increase – I think that’s substantial enough that it really should go back through the bid process.

Flynt: We believe this is the best firm for this project, based on the criteria we used. The selection process followed the state-approved method. Re-bidding now would cost more and delay the project significantly.

Permissive Transfers:

Baker: Does CVA have a cap?

Jackson: Yes. There is an application process. Some seats are left open in case the alternative school needs a spot.

Dekle: How many parents request this?

Jackson: Not that many. I think there were 5 last year at Blue Ridge.

Allen: Is there a specific policy which covers this?

Jackson: Policy JB handles waivers but this is required under law.

Allen asked the board to create a policy around this situation and brought up a specific example of a student’s waiver that was revoked. The parent felt that the district retaliated and without a policy there’s no way to appeal the district’s decision. Chairman Dekle asserted that the parent could bring litigation against the district then if they felt they were wronged, and that is how they could reverse the decision. Judy Teasley asserted that they can’t speak about specific families or students during an open public meeting because of student privacy.

Stop Finder: This is an app that will replace the current transportation app. Will begin rolling it out in mid-January.

Superintendent Reports:

• Principal for a Day

• 10 educators received $500 mini-grants from Columbia County School Foundation

• 1/8/2026 8th Graders will have Pathway Fair 0900-2pm at Columbia County Exhibition Center

• Early Dismissal: 12/19/2025

• Winter Break: 12/22/2025-1/1/2026

• 1/2/2026: Teacher Workday/ Student Holiday

• 1/5/2026: First day of 2nd Semester

• 1/9/2026: Report Cards

Public Comment:

• Christine Floyd

• Joan Krupsky

• Karin Parham

• Cara Parker

• Brenda Heideman

• Janet Duggan

• Harlem VFW

Executive Session: None

Personnel Recommendations. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: Approve: Yay 5, No 0

Next Regular session board meeting 1/13/2026.

Invocation: Harlem Baptist Church Connections Minister Rebekah Dickerson

Pledge of Allegiance: River Ridge ES & Riverside ES 4-H Presidents

Approval of Agenda: Yay 5, No: 1 (Allen stated that she had items that have not been added to the agenda yet)

Special Recognitions:

1. Georgia Chamber of Commerce National Civics Bee 2025

   1. Vivienne Kim, Stallings Island Middle School, 3rd Place

   2. Next local Civics Been at Lakeside HS PAC on 3/19/2026

2. School District Military Veterans: Appreciation video

Board Comments: All Board members are thankful for the high number of staff that our veterans. Proud of 4H Presidents and Vivienne Kim at Civics Bee.

Board Policies:

1. Board Policy IB, Instructional Program Goals and Objectives

2. Board Policy IF, Instructional Resources

3. Board Policy JR, Student Records

4. Board Policy KHE, Gifts to Schools

Flynt: Policies 1-3 were on the table but we haven’t received any input.

Allen: I do have some points of discussion about Board Policy IF, Instructional Resources. We removed 4 paragraphs and inserted the electronic aspect. I have no problem with the addition we added, but I would like to consider we keep the early original paragraphs. The reason is that they go into detail about the extent the district will go to protect PII. In the new phrasing, it reduces these 4 very detailed clauses and reduces it down to one generic clause.

Flynt: Some of the things that we’re removing, and the personally identifiable information is obviously extremely important to us, but a good bit of this is required in state law. And so we remove that and don’t restate state law, because when the state law is either adjusted change or some of the rules and regulations change, then we don’t want to miss that on the other side. And that’s one of the reasons on the policies that we list, the associated official Code of Georgia. So we’re sure that we have those as well. But we try not to restate it in policy.

Allen: So, pull this one [Board Policy IF] out of the group and table it for one month. Yay: 5, No 0

Vote on Board Policy IB & Board Policy JR: Yay 5, No 0

Flynt: I’ll move on to Policy. KHE gets to schools. There’s one addition here.Even though we typically do follow this, we thought it was important to have this put it into procedure. And that’s around donated items, making sure those, such as books or any instructional materials, meet the selection criteria. And we would do that in practice, but we felt that there was a good place in Policy to add that. So that’s the only change to khe. No need. Unless there’s Discussion to vote on this tonight, we’ll leave it on the table for input.

Building Program

1. Bid Results

   1. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

      

      This is for switches and peripheral equipment at Evans High School.

   2. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

      

      Able to use $176,220 from State Bond Funds. Baker asked about rotating the fleet. Some buses are used for travel to extracurricular and field trips. So, not all buses are used every year. Also, have some so if one breaks down we have others. Break downs aren’t as big of an issue because our fleet is fairly new but whenever opportunity comes to use State funds, then we get a discount. The new will come from the general fund.

   3. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

There was some discussion about if some of the companies were local and if they weren’t local if the district would have to pay extra for the company to travel. The bids here include everything.

2. Approval of Naming of Facility at Stallings Island Middle School. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

SIMS to name their football and soccer field Cooper Field after Mr. Brett Thomas Cooper, who died of non Hodgkins lymphoma in 2022. Mr. Cooper taught Math in Columbia County Schools for 20 years, as well as coached football and baseball.

3. Resolution to close out Westmont Elementary School. Approve: Yay 5, No 0

4. Adoption of Bond Resolution for the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds and Related Terms and for Authorizing the Sale of the Bonds to he Successful Bidder. Approve: Yay 4, Abstain: 1 (Katie Allen)

(This discussion is transcribed using Fireflies AI Transcription)

Flynt: As you know, we’ve been preparing to issue general obligation bonds to fund much needed improvements, which will start with Harlem High School. The design funding, as you also know for Harlem High School was previously approved, and you’ve seen a number of those renderings, and we’re looking forward to once this passes. Starting construction... We successfully bid the sale and secured great pricing at 3.79%. So congratulations on that. Much of that goes back to the financial stewardship of this district over a long period of time. And you were able to read through the ratings that we were provided for both Moody’s and Standard and Forest, and we were very excited to see those so strong. We also have an amazing team who did this work. I’d like to thank a couple of them before we get to the. To the vote on this. Jamie Wilson, who is our advisor. Ken Pollock with Butler Snow, who’s our bond attorney. Larry Fletcher, general counsel is in the room. And of course, Alex Cassado, our cfo. Great team. I know there’s a lot of others that helped, but we’re very honored to be able to work with this group and get such a very good pricing. So at this time, we ask that you adopt the required resolution that authorizes the issuance and sale of $180 million in bonds.

not sure: So moved

Baker: Second

Dekle: Discussion

Allen: Dr. Flynt and Chairman Dekle, could you state in good faith that you conducted this process in full transparency to the best of your ability to board members and citizens?

Flynt: I can, yes.

Allen: May I share some of my reservations for discussion that I find this process has not been transparent to board members or to taxpayers?

Dekle: Floor is open…

Allen: Has the district shared the bond terms or amortization schedules to the public? More they shared prior to the meeting on August 26, when this was first voted upon by board members.

Flynt: This process has been going on for about a year and a half. We’ve had not only retreats with the board where we’ve gone through many of these specifics, but we’ve also answered all the questions that we’ve been asked. So as well as we could. I think we have. I don’t know that we need to go back and repeat all of that, but you’ve had access and we give you the information that you’ve asked for.

Dekle: We had an earlier preliminary resolution vote in August, did we not?

Flynt: We did….

Allen: Were board members given the amortization here before…

Teasley: What exactly are we doing right now?

Allen: Were board members, given the amortization schedule….

Teasley: What are we doing without. I mean, I’m…

Allen: I’m raising my reservations that the public was not made aware of the amortization schedule, and I’ve only received it today at 3 o’ clock. Specifically in the fact that interest is going to cost taxpayers over $112 million.

Dekle: Ms. Allen, are you…?

Allen: Is that something that we would normally…?

Dekle: Publicly stated on a number of occasions that you’re against borrowing money and you’re….. against improvement at Harlem High School.

Allen: That’s not correct.

Dekle: So you’re on record for doing that? I’m on record for supporting the updates to Harlem High School. Borrowing money is absolutely essential for us to bring that school into the 21st century. This is your district. This is the high school that sits in your district. And we’ve already done many improvements to other high schools throughout our county.

Allen: Are you for transparency and keeping your word to taxpayers, Chairman Dekle?

Dekle: Excuse me, ma’am.

Allen: Are you for transparency and keeping your word to taxpayers?

Dekle: Very transparent.

Allen: Okay. Historically, in 2019, taxpayers were told that esplost referendums allowed school districts to issue bonds to build immediately and then use esplost revenue to repay the bonds over the Life of the Five Year esplost. How is it that we tell taxpayers their bonds will be repaid over the term of the esplost? And this particular bond, it was repaid over 20 years. I’ve asked for schedules. I’ve asked to see what it would look like repaid over seven years and 10 years. Those have not been provided to me. Why have they not been provided? Why are we only looking at 20 years ago?

Dekle: What qualifies you to ummm?

Allen: I’m trying to keep my word to taxpayers. When we tell taxpayers, if you approve this, we’re intending to pay this back over the life of the esplost, and then we quietly, without even informing board members until after the original vote, bring in something that has a 20 year 4 eSPLOST cycle payment schedule with $112 million in interest alone. That’s almost the price of the school. And we want to do it [muffled]?That’s not transparent.

Flynt: I would just say the resolution that was approved by the voters was very clear that we were able to use debt service. And as a matter of fact, over that last year and a half, through multiple public meetings, we stated that there was a possibility that we may need to use debt service to do that. And over the last maybe six or seven months, we’ve seen where we’re able to do that without adding a debt service or anything else to the millage. And so that’s good news to the taxpayers. We’ve been very forthright with y’ all on this. The voters knew it for the resolution that they approved. And now it’s Yalls Turn to make a motion to either approve or deny the sale of these bonds that ask.

Allen: The question not transparent is our bonds advisor is receiving a commission on this, is that correct? Our financial.

Dekle: Okay. There’s a motion to call for a question. I’ll second that. It’s not debatable. All in favor of ending debate, please raise your right hand. All opposed? All right. The motion to end debate passes three to two. (In favor of ending debate: Teasley, Baker, Dekle. Opposed: Kent, Allen) So now the motion is on the floor to adopt the bond resolution. I will ask all in favor, raise your right hand. All opposed. All in favor of approving the bond resolution as presented by superintendent. All in favor of approval of the bond resolution as presented by the superintendent, raise your right hand. Any abstentions?

Allen: I’m abstaining due to transparency concerns.

Dekle: Speaker 1: 00:00

Okay, so the motion passes four to with one abstention. And the I’ll sign the bond resolution is present. Thank you, Dr. Flynt. Thank you.

Kent: Board members I’d like to make a comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. I don’t appreciate some of the statements were made. I don’t like the direction that necessarily came going here with this. But I also believe that Mr. Chairman said that she was not for rebuilding schools, and that’s not true. I want to make that very make us aware in this room. And she wants to build schools. She doesn’t like the plan. It was in place where I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but that was not true.

Allen: That’s absolutely correct. I’ve said all along I want to support these bonds because I support the projects that they stand for. But we must be transparent. We must protect taxpayer money and 20 years, $100 million. That’s not a good deal. That’s not a good deal for anybody. And we need to do better. And I believe we can do better.

Dekle: Okay, thank you very much. Let’s move on.

Teasley: I’m sorry. I need to make one statement. Okay. I resent the notion that anybody is sitting here saying we are not transparent. If you missed something, you felt that you weren’t provided information. If you chose not to investigate further. However you feel like you missed it, I regret that. Please don’t sit here and act like I am part of a board that is not transparent. And that will be the end of my….

Allen: Do you agree with that, Dr. Flynt? Do you agree with that?

Teasley: That question has already been asked and answered. Can we move on, please?

Allen: I just want to clarify that you believe that I did not pursue this information. That is why I don’t have it. Am I understanding correctly?

Dekle: I, I think you’ve been given all the information you’ve asked for. We’ve been completely transparent. And I, you know, if, if we don’t do the bond deal, then the construction doesn’t get done. It’s the bottom line. So, I mean, you can be in favor of building schools, but how are. How are you going to pay for it? You’re going to do it for free. Nobody’s going to do it for free. We, we can’t sit around and wait 20 years to update the school. So if you oppose the bond resolution, then you’re basically opposing our building plan. That’s my, that’s my.

Allen: That’s a false dichotomy to say I have to agree to a bad deal if I will support building schools.

Teasley: You can’t call us, say that we left…[muffled]

Allen: I can say that because we hired a financial advisor who makes a commission off of this. That’s not, that’s not transparent.

Dekle: I don’t think anybody would do it for free. So thank you very much. I think we need to move on and I hope that you’ve been able to air your differences….

Allen: …concerns about taxpayers.

Dekle: All right, well, let’s move on to superintendent reports.

Superintendent Reports

• GA Apply to College Month through GA Match. Also No fee November

Baker: Asked how displaced/homeless students can receive this information.

District Personnel: They can logon at GA Futures

• American Education Week, November 17-21

• Principal for a Day, November 20

• Thanksgiving Holidays: November 24-28

• Early Dismissal, December 19

• Winter Break: December 22- January 1

Public Particpation:

• Priscilla Bence: Discussed porn addiction and the importance of removing “porn” from the school libraries

• Marlena Bergeron: Discussed District Media Review Committee and does not agree with recent book removals

• Janet Duggan: Doesn’t agree with the bonds. Asked for more transparency.

• Brenda Heideman: Wants the district to post the 10 Commandments at all schools.

• Joan Krupsky: Discussed District Media Review Committee and does not agree with recent book removals

• Karin Parham: Made a statement on behalf of Freedom to Read Coalition of Columbia County. Submitted a policy analysis memo.

• Cara Parker: Discussed District Media Review Committee and does not agree with recent book removals

Executive Session: Approve: Yay 5, No 0

• Executed affidavit

• Voted on Real estate: Yay 5, No 0

• Personnel: Yay 5, No 0

Adjourn: Yay 5, No 0