Darlington County School District Continues to Struggle With Funding Cuts

April 13, 2010

An increase in property taxes will not be an option as Darlington County School district officials look for ways to absorb more than $6.3 million in funding shortages and cost increases for the coming budget year, the county’s superintendent of education said.

Dr. Rainey Knight told the Darlington County Board of Education Monday that restrictions imposed by the state’s property tax relief act, Act 388, will prevent the district from raising any millage for general operations next year.

The board took another look at a possible financial plan for the upcoming year, a plan members first reviewed back in February. The plan is aimed at addressing cuts in state funding A few things have changed in the plan since February, Knight said.

For one thing, district teachers and administrative staff could see furloughs as part of a new district budget, Knight said.

One option under consideration includes a six-day furlough for administrative employees and a three-da y furlough for teachers. The furlough days would save more than $867,000, according to the report.

The state had been considering a mandatory 10-day furlough for teachers and other employees, but a $5 billion budget approved by the S.C. House of Representatives gives the district a little more flexibility on furloughs, Knight said.

She said she remains hopeful that the district can avoid furloughing employees if the final state budget includes a freeze of the Index of Taxpaying Ability and elimination of step pay increases for teachers. Those are increases given for an additional year of experience. Those two steps, Knight said, could absorb almost $1.5 million in potential cost increases to the district.

The district also has the option of dipping into its $16 million general fund balance to offset part of the cuts, she said.

Hartsville board member Charles Govan said he would like to see the district use about $1.5 million from the fund balance to avoid cutting programs and personnel too deeply.

But board member Dr. Allen McCutcheon said the board has time before making any such decision. He said he would rather wait and see what the final version of the new state budget looks like when the General Assembly finishes work on it.

“The plan for 2010-2011 has been developed with the assumption that our state revenue will decline,” a report outlining the plan states.

The plan includes possible measures that could save more than $6.2 million. Those include possible elimination of 40 additional positions through attrition as much as possible for a savings of more than $2.5 million. Knight said that while attrition could absorb most of those cuts, some employees, perhaps five or six, could lose their jobs.

She said district officials will get a clearer of the situation regarding positions and attrition in the coming weeks. Employment contracts were scheduled to go out this week and those offered contracts for the next school year have until May 15 to respond, she said.

The board has eliminated 60 teaching positions and 40 non-certified positions as well as six district office staff positions for the current budget year to make up for state funding cuts. Most of those, but not all, were eliminated as positions became vacant and employees reassigned.

Additional steps outlined in the plan could include moving expenditures for technology and equipment items from the general fund to the debt service fund for a savings of more than $1.4 million, according to Knight.

Eliminating health rebates to district employees would save another $423,000, while eliminating athletic and academic supplements and extracurricular activities by 20 percent would account for another $148,888.

Officials are also considering using $488,000 in Barnwell funds, money originally intended to fund capital expenses, for operating purposes.

None of the items listed in the plan have been adopted, and the board took no action on the plan Monday. Knight said the plan components and figures will almost certainly change again before the board meets in May to take up a budget.

Other possible considerations included in the report include freezing salaries and supplements for all district employees next year, prohibiting overtime except in emergency situations, reviewing elective course offering and closing low enrollment programs, sharing coordinating teachers among schools and considering the consolidation of some schools. None of those items came with an associated dollar figure.

The plan outline points out that if the state student base cost (SBC) was funded at the level recommended by the State Budget and Control Board at $2,760 per child, that would equate to an additional $11 million in state funding for the district. Instead, the SBC stands at $1,630.

Knight said the impact of Act 388 on public school funding is dismantling gains teachers, schools and students have made in recent years. But she said despite calls from educators across the state to revisit the act, the Legislature appears unlikely to do so anytime soon.

“There are too many variables to determine the final budget figures for 2010-2011, but this does give us some direction for where we are headed with these cuts,” the report on the plan states. “It also gives us the ability to use attrition as much as possible. Lastly, it goes without saying, but at some point the State of South Carolina must address the lack of adequate funding for public education. The recent downturn in the economy painfully indicates the inability of the penny sales tax to adequately fund public education.”

Knight said she will present a budget to the board for a vote on first reading at the board’s May 10 meeting. She said she hopes the board can give final approval to the budget at its regular meeting in June, if lawmakers are finished with a state budget by then.