Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgetown County board debates millage options to fund teacher raises, admin pay and services
Summary
Board members reviewed a draft general fund budget with multiple millage options to cover mandated and requested increases — including a $2,500 teacher raise — and debated trade-offs for administrator scale increases, interventionist positions and special-services hires.
Georgetown County School Board members on Tuesday reviewed a draft general fund budget that presents several millage options and trade-offs to cover mandated teacher increases, pay-scale changes and program requests.
District staff told the board they expect about $6.8 million in new revenue and outlined four options ranging from no millage increase (Option 1) to larger increases that would cover historic practice adjustments and school requests (Options 2–4). The presentation included a mandatory $2,500 teacher increase to be applied to all certified staff and proposed changes to classified and administrative scales.
Why it matters: the board must balance classroom priorities, special-services staffing and competitive administrator pay while avoiding federal Title I 'supplanting' rules. Staff emphasized that selectively funding additional interventionists with local dollars while Title I remains in use at some schools risks triggering federal compliance problems.
District finance staff explained that Option 2 (about 3.2 additional mills in the initial framing) would cover many of the prioritized items, and that adding an administrative scale increase plus specific special-services positions would push the total millage to roughly four mills; including broader school requests could require higher millage. Staff warned any millage change requires a 15-calendar-day advertisement and an extra public hearing before adoption.
Board members questioned trade-offs. One board member urged maximizing classroom supports and interventionist positions, while others stressed the need to boost administrative salaries to remain competitive with neighboring districts. The board also discussed a proposal to add a second interventionist at some schools but were cautioned that uneven local funding for interventionists could force Title I-funded schools to lose federal support on those services.
Mr. Street, a district finance/staff presenter, explained the compliance risk: “you cannot use local public funds to supplant what Title I is being used to provide,” and recommended any expansion of second interventionists be phased and implemented across the district to avoid federal issues.
Board direction and next steps: members expressed movement toward a variant of Option 2 with targeted additions for administrator scale increases and special-services positions and asked staff to return with a refined Option 3. Staff said the board would need to advertise any millage change for 15 days and schedule a public hearing before a final vote.
What’s next: the board asked staff to prepare a revised budget option for a future meeting and to provide comparative millage revenue figures for neighboring counties to help assess competitiveness and tax impact.
