Sumter School District requests $4.64 million for staffing as council debates millage and fiscal autonomy

Dr. Penelope M. Knox, superintendent of Sumter School District, presented the district’s 2022–23 funding request to Sumter County Council on June 14, asking for 87.5 positions and $4,637,747 in personnel costs to support teachers, counselors, nurses, interventionists and custodial staff.

Knox said the district’s three operating goals are academic achievement, climate and culture, and facilities management and introduced the district’s new superintendent, Dr. William Wright. Financial Director Jennifer Miller told the council the state is shifting to a teacher-to-student allocation and that House and Senate funding proposals remained unresolved; the district adopted a continuing resolution while awaiting final state numbers and cited a 75/25 ratio from the state as part of the uncertainty.

The presentation included a line‑item staffing request: 4.5 teachers ($360,263); 4 special services teachers ($320,234); 4 special‑services paraprofessionals ($146,046); 8 nurses ($418,774); 2 guidance counselors ($160,117); 10 mental‑health professionals ($615,840); 13 interventionists ($823,025); 41 custodians ($1,713,390); and 1 media specialist ($80,058), totaling $4,637,747.

Council members pressed the district for detail. Councilman Carlton B. Washington asked whether the presentation assumed the House or Senate funding plan and raised concerns about program imbalances between rural and city schools, citing fewer programs at Rafting Creek and R.E. Davis compared with Alice Drive and Bates. Knox responded that program offerings are tied to student enrollment and staffing, and she said some facility matters for R.E. Davis had been discussed in executive session and could not be addressed publicly at the meeting.

Vice Chairman James R. Byrd and Councilman Charles T. Edens asked about mandated retirement and teacher funding; Miller said projected retirement expenditures are the district’s responsibility and that 992 positions were included in the teacher‑funding calculation. Knox said more than 90% of district expenditures go to teacher-related costs.

Councilman Eugene R. Baten made a prolonged appeal for greater county support, arguing that Sumter County Council historically has underfunded the district and criticized South Carolina Act 388 for creating “winners and losers.” Baten said he believed the district was entitled to more millage and accused some parties of a private agreement limiting the district’s requests to two mills. Knox denied the allegation: “For the record, I did not make any agreement with anyone,” she said.

After discussion, Councilman Artie Baker moved, Vice Chairman Byrd seconded, and council unanimously voted to receive the school district presentation as information and to take no immediate action on Resolution R-22-06.

The presentation leaves several items unresolved: the final state allocation, whether the district’s 10.9‑mill figure (referenced in discussion) will be formally requested, and how any county contribution will be phased. Council and district leaders called for more direct workshop-style meetings to improve dialogue before final budget decisions.

What happens next: Council received the budget request as information; no millage change or funding commitment was made at the June 14 meeting. The School District and County Council may schedule follow-up meetings as the state funding picture clarifies.