Richland School District 2 presents FY2027 budget proposal that boosts teacher pay while trimming some programs

Superintendent Dr. Moore and district finance leaders presented a proposed FY2027 general fund budget at a Richland School District 2 board workshop on April 16, 2026, emphasizing competitive teacher pay, safety and compliance investments and a set of reductions intended to align resources with projected enrollment and revenue.

The superintendent framed the presentation as an estimate-based recommendation, cautioning that “we do not have firm numbers from our legislators” and that staff were using the best available projections while the General Assembly remained in session. CFO Ms. Williams and budget coordinator Willie Green walked trustees through the budget book, revenue projections and a package of proposed cuts and investments intended to produce a balanced plan without asking for a millage increase.

Why it matters: The proposed plan seeks to preserve classroom priorities while responding to an expected enrollment decline and changes in state funding rules that could shift how some dollars are distributed. Board members repeatedly pressed staff for clearer impact details about personnel and safety reductions before a final board decision.

Key points

• State and county estimates: Staff said local revenue projections from the Richland County auditor were the basis for the no‑mill model. Willie Green said the auditor’s estimate for net taxes and local fees was roughly $202,556,032 (with carryover and adjustments included in the district’s FY27 local revenue projection).

• Enrollment and formula changes: Ms. Williams told trustees the district is planning for an anticipated decline of about 1,492 students next year, which will affect state aid calculations. She reviewed a series of recommendations by the state's Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA) office that would change how 'state aid to classrooms' is calculated, including moving some weights for charter schools and shifting Career and Technical Education (CTE) weighting into a separate Education Improvement Act (EIA) line item.

• CTE funding will be constrained to CTE use: On the RFA changes, Ms. Williams said the money moving into the dedicated CTE line "can only be used for CTE purposes," such as equipment, industry certification and staff tied to CTE programs, and "we cannot transfer it" back into general fund revenue; only expenditures can be reclassified.

• Estimated cost of universal breakfast proviso if enacted: Staff noted the South Carolina House version of the budget includes a free‑breakfast proviso statewide. Ms. Williams said the district’s estimate to participate at no cost would be about "$342,000" if the provision is adopted as written.

• Proposed increases funded without a millage request: The recommended priorities funded from new revenue in the no‑mill plan include a 2% bus driver salary step (state‑mandated, ~ $180,000 recurring), required teacher step increases (~$2.3 million), a 2.5% teacher salary increase raising the new starting salary to $52,019 (~$4.9 million), classified and administrative increases (~$2.3 million) and additional special education staffing (18 positions, ~$1.2 million).

• Proposed reductions and strategic alignment: To offset costs, staff proposed a package of reductions including travel cuts ($800,000), district office position changes ($2.3M), declines in classified/administrative positions ($1.4M), reductions to teacher positions ($8.7M), a $380,000 reduction in bus driver overtime and other line‑item cuts, for a subtotal near $19.2M and a total reduction after certain transfers of about $21.7M.

Board concerns and staff responses

Board members asked detailed questions about implementation and impact. One trustee pressed whether bus drivers who have been used as classroom aides were notified that the overtime or role would be eliminated; staff said they had notified drivers of reductions in the current fiscal year but had not given final notice that the program would be eliminated for FY27 because the document presented is the superintendent’s recommendation to the board. As staff put it: "We have not given them notification that the program we're recommending the program is eliminated." (Ms. Williams)

On safety, trustees asked how reductions to "defender services" (contracted school security) would affect building access and coverage. Staff said the district expects to use a state safety grant for increased access control (badge/swipe systems) so some entry points will be managed technologically rather than staffed; staff stressed that daytime access protocols and initial screening will remain in place.

Programs highlighted

• Evening high school pilot: Staff proposed a $50,000 pilot to provide credits and evening course access for students at a particular high school, distinct from adult/GED services at the W.R. Rogers Education Center. Ms. Morrison described it as a targeted pilot to reduce dropouts and, if effective, could be scaled for 2027–28.

• Read 180 literacy intervention: Staff said Read 180 operates in two of five high schools, has shown strong results there, and that the requested funds would cover materials and training without necessarily adding positions.

Procedure and next steps

The board did not vote on the budget at the workshop. Staff moved the district's first reading to May 12 to align with county deadlines; the budget must be submitted to the county by 5:00 p.m. that day. Tentative publication of the district public hearing notice is May 20; the district's required public hearing and second and final reading are scheduled for June 9. Staff asked trustees to submit follow‑up questions via the district's question tracker so answers are shared with the full board.

The workshop included one formal procedural vote earlier: trustees approved the workshop agenda (motion by Miss Williams, seconded by Mr. Trapp) recorded as five yes and two not present. No final action on FY27 budget items occurred at the April 16 workshop.

What’s next: Staff will update projections once final state and county figures are available, supply requested clarifications (including a plan for supports replacing bus‑driver aides where reductions are approved) and return to the board for first reading on May 12 and a public hearing June 9.