School board approves FY26 operating budget, asks county for $24.17 million; cafeteria budget set at $2.57 million

The Fluvanna County School Board voted 3–1, with one member absent, to approve a fiscal year 2026 operating budget the board will present to the Board of Supervisors and to adopt a cafeteria budget of $2,571,945.

The motion approved a total operating request that the board recorded in the meeting as $24,166,367 and an additional local funding ask of $11,896,979. The vote followed more than two hours of staff presentations and board discussion about staffing, compensation, insurance, and food-service debt.

Why it matters: The board’s approved request sets the Division’s formal ask to the Board of Supervisors during the county budget process. Board members and the superintendent said they expect further negotiation with supervisors and noted that state budget actions still could alter local needs.

Superintendent Don Stribling opened the discussion with a detailed presentation of staffing and compensation priorities. He said the division is seeking to restore positions cut over the last 15 years and to hold pay increases that will keep the division competitive. “What we’re trying to do is cooperate with the county in order to make a presentation with them next Wednesday on the nineteenth,” Stribling said, describing the timeline that drives the board’s schedule.

Key elements of the approved request include: - Staffing: proposed additions and restructuring described by staff included an executive director–level split (instruction and finance), a coordinator of instruction, a director of human resources, a communications position (modeled as a 10‑month teacher contract), and a second behavioral specialist. The superintendent said some director-level positions are technically being eliminated and replaced as part of a restructuring intended to recover leadership capacity while limiting net cost increases. - Health insurance modeling: staff presented a modeled cost to absorb a projected 10% premium increase — shown in the packet as roughly $600,000 — and three offset scenarios in which the board would pass $150,000, $300,000, or the full $600,000 to employees. Board members debated meeting employees “halfway”; the final adopted budget reflects a compromise scenario the board discussed in the meeting. - Federal and one-time offsets: staff said federal ESSER-funded positions brought back during the pandemic were extended using Virginia “All In” carryover funds; the superintendent said carryover offsets reduce next year’s ask but do not eliminate the need to fund those positions in future years. He told the board the carryover money “has to be spent according to the application.” - Food services: staff proposed budgeting $100,000 to address unpaid meal debt and implementation costs for the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) if the division chooses that route. Stribling said the division has absorbed unpaid meals annually and recommended budgeting for the liability rather than relying on year‑end funds. - Safety and technology: the budget includes a multi‑year subscription for wearable alert badges (Centegix) and related visitor‑management changes; staff also identified vendor substitutions (for example, replacing SchoolMessenger with services bundled in the new website platform) as offsets.

Public comment was part of the meeting. Ashley Crocker, who identified herself as a Fort Union District resident, framed the board’s ask as essential. “This funding isn’t for extras. It is the bare minimum required to keep nine critical academic support and mental health positions, cover health insurance increases for school employees, and invest in essential school administration positions,” she said.

Board debate centered on how much of the insurance increase the division should absorb versus pass to employees, and which staffing items should take priority if supervisors signaled a lower appropriation. Several board members said they favored protecting positions that directly support students (behavior specialists, instructional coordinators) while seeking to limit long‑term recurring commitments that would rely on one‑time carryover funds.

The board adopted the operating request and the cafeteria budget and directed staff to present the approved figures as the division’s formal request to the Board of Supervisors. Members said they expect to meet with supervisors during the county process and to revisit line items if the county’s eventual allocation requires revision.

Ending: The board approved the budget package by a 3–1 vote and will present the request to the Board of Supervisors as its FY26 ask. Staff will return in the next weeks with materials the supervisors will use in deliberations.