District facing $6.5 million budget shortage
By JIM FAILE
DARLINGTON - Darlington County Board of Education members got a first look at possible reductions for the coming budget year officials say may be necessary to absorb a shortfall of nearly $6.5 million expected to result from a combination of state funding cuts and cost increases.
“It’s not a pretty picture,” Superintendent of Education Dr. Rainey Knight told board members as she presented a plan outlining possible cuts and other budget measures for the coming year during a budget work session Monday.
With nearly $3 million already cut from the current year’s budget to make up for state shortfalls, the district is also facing the possible loss of more than $1 million in state funding that could result from a proposed plan under consideration by state lawmakers to make furloughs for teachers and administrative employees mandatory.
In addition, district officials are projecting an $867,000 cost increase for state-mandated step increases in pay for teachers as well as a $343,000 increase in costs for health insurance and workers compensation insurance.
“This is not a good year, and I’m looking for next year to be even worse,” Knight said. “I don’t think the state budget is going to be much better in 2011.”
Knight presented a list of possible steps totaling about $6.8 million to address the budget shortfall. Those include the possible reduction of 40 additional positions - through attrition if possible – that could include 13 elementary teaching positions, 12 middle school positions and 15 high school positions.
Such a move would save more than $2.5 million, she said.
Other possibilities include using $488,000 in Barnwell funds for operating expenses. The Barnwell money set aside by the state was initially intended for capital expenses, Knight said.
Still others include moving technology items and equipment items from the general fund to the debt service fund and cutting the number of contract days for some employees, eliminating health rebates to employees for a savings of about $423,000 and eliminating transportation for students to district magnet programs, which would save about $70,000.
Knight said school districts around the state are facing similar problems. “Everybody is bleeding,” she said.
One thing not included in the plan at this point is an increase in local property taxes, Knight said. She said, however, that remains an option for the board, though with some state-imposed limits.
“These are just ideas,” Knight said.
Knight also cautioned that in addition to the projected shortfall for the coming budget year, the district will also lose $2.6 million in federal stimulus funds in 2011, funding that helped absorb some state cuts this year.
The board also has the option of using some of the district’s nearly $16 million general fund balance, Knight said. The board used $700,000 from the general fund balance to deal with current year budget shortages.
These measures would come in addition to steps already taken to reduce funding for the 2009-2010 budget that included the elimination of 60 teacher positions, 40 non-certified employee positions and six district office staff, freezing salaries for all employees except step increases for teachers and delaying hiring to fill critical positions, Knight said.
Knight and board members alike voiced concerns about the potential impact of such decisions on class sizes in district schools.
“These are just some tough choices,” she said. “We’re operating on 70 percent of our budget now.”
Per pupil funding for public education in the state is going backwards, Knight said.
“If the student base cost (SBC) was funded at the level recommended by the Budget and Control Board, the district would see the SBC at $2,760 per child, which equates to $11 million in additional state funding,” Knight said in her report. “However, our current SBC is $1,760 with expectations of this being further reduced by teacher furloughs.”
Board members voiced their frustrations as well. “It just appears to me that we’re being micromanaged,” said Hartsville board member Charles Govan, referring to the possible state-mandated furloughs. “Each district’s needs are different,” he said.
“I think it’s ridiculous to say you’re going to furlough somebody for 10 days and still have a step increase,” Knight said.
“When you sit back and think about this, there’s very little of this that’s in our control,” said Hartsville board member Jamie Morphis. “We’re going back 20 years. It’s awful.”
Other possible steps outlined in the report include keeping certain positions vacant when they become open, including teaching positions, transferring employees as much as possible to cover critical areas, prohibiting overtime except in emergencies, consolidating some schools, sharing coordinating teachers at smaller schools and reviewing elective course offerings and closing low enrollment programs.
The board took no action on any of the ideas offered in the plan except to give Knight the authority to move forward with employment positions as the time for employee contract approval moves closer.
Wonder why teachers raises go up while eliminating positions? Why is it that school employees get their share of the health premium paid for while other state employees have to pay their share. School boards have different “powers” in other districts, why can’t they all be equal?
Teachers deserve a good salary for certain, but if other positions are being eliminated, why can’t they share in this economy?