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