Greenville County Schools hold first reading of FY25 general fund budget; district proposes $2,700 teacher step, 3.8‑mill operational ask

Greenville County Schools trustees on May 8 received the administration’s first reading of the FY25 general fund budget, which recommends a $2,700 across‑the‑board increase to each teacher salary step, a series of raises and step adjustments for non‑teacher employees, and a 3.8‑mill operational tax draw from available carryover mills to cover growth and inflation.

Doctor Royster, presenting the budget to the board, told trustees that projecting revenue this year has been unusually difficult because of state funding changes and shifting local millage patterns. "This has been one of the most difficult years that we have experienced in projecting revenue," he said, while also pointing to strong academic indicators — including increased graduation rates, National Merit semifinalists and significant scholarship offers — as justification for prioritizing personnel.

The recommended personnel changes include adding a 36th step to the teacher salary schedule, a $2,700 increase per step (raising the starting salary for first‑year teachers to $50,503), and a minimum 3.5% increase for employees paid on non‑teacher step schedules. The administration said the teacher changes yield an average teacher increase of roughly 5.5% when step movement and the new step are included.

Why it matters: the district's supplemental federal ESSER funding that bolstered fund balances in recent years is ending, which reduces one large source of flexibility and increases pressure on the general fund and on revenue projections. The administration is asking trustees to weigh a modest millage draw from earlier carryover mills (3.8 mills of the available 25.3 carryover mills) to meet rising operating costs tied to inflation and student growth.

Revenue and major program changes
Miss Dackett, budget staff, told the board the administration projects an $11.19 million increase in locally assessed mill value compared with the work‑session number and described changes in the Senate’s FY25 proposal to state aid that reduce the district’s state allocation compared with earlier local estimates (a decrease in 'state aid to classrooms' of about $11.59 million from the workshop figures). The Senate language also separated employee health insurance as a distinct line item, adding about $9.29 million to that category in its proposal.

On the operating side, the administration proposed continuing some services that had relied on ESSER funding — notably a set of permanent substitutes, bilingual attendant supervisors and certain intervention positions — while moving others to regular funds or grant funding as appropriate. Staff also described investments in safety and technology (behavior threat assessment management systems, network hardware replacements no longer eligible for E‑rate reimbursement) and flagged increased contract costs such as the district’s athletic‑trainer expense, which staff said has risen following changes in vendor arrangements.

Trustee discussion and questions
Trustees pressed staff on several items during an extended Q&A. Questions included: what changes in E‑rate (the FCC program that reimburses certain technology expenses) mean for the district’s ability to recoup costs; whether bus drivers hired mid‑year receive safety/attendance bonuses; and why some line items in the notebook are budgeted substantially higher than the prior year’s actual expenditures.

Miss Doolin pointed to one example: "We budget $100,000 a year for legal services; one year we spent $3,500, another year $53,000 — why is the budget that high?" she said. Dr. Royster replied that the administration budgets certain accounts based on multi‑year history and the need to protect the district from unexpected settlement or contract costs. "You can't necessarily predict to the dime what you might spend in that category," he said, while noting the larger budget is designed to preserve financial stability and the district’s bond rating.

Millage and taxpayer examples
The administration reiterated its recommended 3.8‑mill operational increase would be drawn from available carryover mills. Dr. Royster used vehicle‑tax examples to explain how the motor vehicle assessment system interacts with millage changes: for the sample 2011 Toyota Camry used in the presentation, staff showed a projected total school operating tax of $18.30 under the FY25 recommendation — about 50¢ less than what the same car owner paid this year because of vehicle assessment rules that cap increases and the typical depreciation of vehicles year to year.

Procedure and next steps
Administration asked trustees to submit questions in writing to allow staff time to prepare written responses before the second reading. The board set a public hearing and second reading of the FY25 general fund budget for Monday, June 3 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting closed after a motion to adjourn was offered, seconded and approved.

What remains unresolved: several trustees requested additional detail on budget line‑item variances and small‑business/landlord impacts; staff committed to providing further data and a Committee of the Whole presentation on the early‑college transitions, and to prepare written answers before the June 3 session.