Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenwood 52 board unanimously approves 2026–27 budget, reviews capital projects and funding
Summary
The Greenwood County School District 52 Board of Trustees approved the 2026–27 general fund budget unanimously and reviewed capital projects and funding, including PA system estimates and nearly $1.8 million available in capital funds.
The Greenwood County School District 52 Board of Trustees voted unanimously June 9 to adopt the 2026–27 general fund budget, which holds school fees steady and factors in a districtwide free breakfast and lunch program approved through 2028.
Finance Director Jennifer Fleming presented the budget on its second reading and reviewed the district’s capital projects. Fleming said the District Capital Projects Fund holds approximately $1.8 million; nearly $800,000 remains from a $4.5 million transfer earmarked to finish the Multiplex. She reported roughly $540,000 is available from prior bond issuances and cited a FY2026 bond issuance estimate of $600,000.
Fleming outlined current and upcoming projects: media center furniture was installed at Ninety Six Elementary School; an RFP for digital marquees is active; district office painting quotes are pending; and a concrete pad and sidewalk for track bleachers has been poured. Twenty-seven new interactive panels for NSPS are due to arrive June 15 and will be installed during summer break.
The board also received preliminary cost estimates for new public-address systems: about $297,000 for the Complex, $147,000 for the Primary School and $131,000 for the Elementary School. Fleming said those costs might be partially offset by grant funding that has not yet been announced.
London Thomas moved to approve the budget and Darren Carter seconded; Thomas, Carter, Adam Eichelberger, Ray Jackson and Jay Reynolds voted in favor.
The budget vote was the primary formal action on financial matters this meeting; the board did not adopt a separate capital project ordinance and no additional funding sources were committed at the meeting.
