Board accepts first reading of 2025–26 budget presentation as officials flag revenue, millage and salary pressures

The Newberry County School board voted to accept the first reading of the superintendent’s 2025–26 budget presentation during its meeting (motion moved from the floor and approved by voice vote). The presentation laid out revenue and expenditure projections, possible millage options and a range of personnel-related cost increases.

The presenter said delinquent tax collections are projected at $600,000 (down from last year’s $650,000) and interest income is estimated at $1,000,000 (a $200,000 reduction from the prior projection of $1,200,000). State aid classroom revenue for the general fund was shown as $26,678,700; the presenter listed EIA (Education Improvement Act) funds at $5,405,546 and said total state revenue streams currently “sit at $32,083,621,” an increase from the prior year. The presenter summarized an ending revenue estimate of approximately $75,052,220.

The presenter reviewed the statutory limit on millage increases, quoting what was listed in the presentation as “Section 6 1 3 20 of the South Carolina code law,” and explained the technical calculation (consumer price increase plus population percentage). Using the figures provided, the presenter said the district could add up to 4 mills under the lowest-of-the-two rule, producing an estimated $473,864 in additional revenue. The presenter emphasized that the board’s local revenue estimates in the packet were shown without adding any new millage.

On expenditures, staff listed major proposed increases largely tied to personnel. The presentation showed an estimated teacher salary cost increase of about $1,100,000 (noting a $1,500 across‑the‑board certified-staff increase plus an additional step), a classified‑staff cost estimate of $996,507 to reflect a proposed 10% increase plus step, and smaller percentages proposed for administrative and athletic supplement adjustments. The presenter said health insurance projected costs were revised upward after the State Senate incorporated a 4.6% district‑wide health insurance increase; the presenter previously had a $250,000 projection for insurance and increased that figure to reflect the Senate projection.

Facilities and technology contract costs also were discussed: the presenter listed annual facilities maintenance contract increases of $330,675 and said numerous technology annual contracts require budget adjustments (the presentation noted a number discussed as $900,000 in the technology line). In the packet presented to the board, “post proposed expenditures” were listed as $76,270,287 and “post proposed revenue” as $75,052,229; the presenter described the difference in the packet during the meeting using the phrasing in the presentation (audio: “The difference is revenue expenditures over revenue of 1,000,000 is $218,058”).

Board members pressed staff on the timing and likely impact of a county reassessment (staff said any county reassessment would take place in 2025 but that up‑to‑date estimates from the assessor were not yet available). Several board members asked staff to prepare alternative scenarios that reflect smaller and larger salary increases, possible one‑time employee bonuses from fund balance, and fund‑balance impacts if reassessment revenue is different than projected.

Next steps noted by staff: a public hearing on the budget is scheduled for June 9 at 7:00 p.m., and the second (final) reading is scheduled for the board’s June 23 meeting. The board accepted the first reading by voice vote at the meeting.

Ending: Staff said they will bring back revised budget scenarios and clarifications (including reassessment estimates, fund‑balance options and line‑by‑line reductions) at the next work session and the next board meeting prior to final adoption.