Fort Mill administration proposes roughly $234 million budget, cites state funding shift and up to 21.9‑mill local option

The Fort Mill School District administration presented a proposed general fund budget for fiscal 2024–25 of about $234 million and said changes in the stateeducation funding formula mean the district will rely more heavily on local tax revenue.

At a board meeting where the presentation served as a first reading, the administration said primary revenue sources for the general fund are local taxes, state education funding and a small federal share. The districtprojection presented by the administration showed roughly 57.2 percent local revenue, 42.7 percent state revenue and a minimal federal share. The slides presented illustrated a maximum illustrative millage scenario of a 21.9‑mill increase under ACT 388 calculations (a combined CPI and population adjustment of about 8.25 percent), which the administration noted would be a policy decision for the board to consider.

Administration spokesperson Miss Lordo described the budget as balanced and prioritized recurring expenditures for staff and operations. She outlined that salaries and fringe benefits account for the large majority of district spending — about 89.4 percent — and emphasized planned personnel investments: increasing the starting teacher salary from $47,000 to $50,000, adding six classroom teachers, three special education teachers, about 15 special education assistants, two school psychologists and other instructional and student‑support positions. She also said seven positions currently funded through one‑time ESSER III grants will need to be moved into the general fund when that funding expires.

Miss Lordo told the board that the new state funding formula is "based on a formula to fund teachers statewide" but, in the districtpresentation, covers only about 54 percent of the teacher pay increases the district plans to include, leaving the remainder to local revenue or other sources. The administration also noted the Senate Finance projections reduced the districtestimate further when $30 million was removed from statewide allocations, creating additional pressure on the local plan.

Board members pressed staff on the distribution of local versus state funding, the impact of millage choices and a range of service and program priorities. The administration gave examples of taxpayer impact under different millage scenarios (including a cited difference of roughly $16 a year on a typical vehicle between lower and higher millage scenarios) and warned that primary residences are generally not subject to the operating millage calculations discussed.

Other budget lines discussed included technology licensing and engineering contracts, utilities and maintenance cost increases, expanded transportation and activity bus costs, and curricular items previously supported by state line items that now must be built into the recurring budget. The administration also summarized contingency/reserve balances and said the proposed plan anticipates using about $2 million of contingency funds for 2024–25 while preserving reserves for upcoming school openings.

The administration described the presentation as a first reading. The board and staff discussed next procedural steps: the administration will advertise a public hearing in early June and bring the budget back for the formal readings and final vote in June after required public notice.

Why it matters: The district said the combined effect of the state funding formula changes and enrollment growth shifts a larger share of funding responsibility to local taxpayers and businesses, while the budget proposal prioritizes teacher pay restoration and student supports to preserve class‑size and services.

Whatcomes next: The budget will return to the board for further readings and a public hearing in early June, with final approval scheduled after the hearing and statutory notice requirements are met.