Stafford schools present balanced FY26 budget proposal but warn $15 million shortfall remains
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
School staff presented a proposed FY26 budget that relies on state funding, a $5 million county transfer and an expected $3.1 million meals-tax allocation to fund a 2.7% across‑the‑board pay increase and a $700 retention bonus; presenters said the plan still leaves roughly a $15 million funding gap unless local commitments hold.
Stafford County School Board staff presented a proposed FY26 budget that assumes the state budget passed May 2, a $5 million increase from the county administrator and the county’s intended 1% meals‑tax increase to be considered at a public hearing, adding roughly $3.1 million to school transfers. The presentation said those revenues, together with other adjustments, would let the division propose a 2.7% across‑the‑board compensation increase for licensed staff and a one‑time retention bonus paid after contracts are returned.
The proposal would raise licensed scale minimums by $100 at the base and apply a 2.5%–2.7% increase across the teacher scale so the division’s pay package aligns more closely with the county’s 2.75% offer to county employees. The plan also uses the state’s flexibility to distribute a state bonus (the state proposed up to $1,000 for certain positions) as a $700 retention bonus for full‑time employees, prorated for part‑time employees and payable July 1 for staff who return signed contracts by a June 15 deadline.
Board members and staff emphasized the proposal assumes the county will forward the meals‑tax revenue. Staff said the division would be prepared to issue contracts if the board adopts the budget and salaries without changes; they warned that if the county does not appropriate the expected $3.1 million, the division would have to reconcile the budget and could rescind or revise contracts. Staff said the school division will ask the Board of Supervisors for timely appropriation and has discussed the matter with the county administrator.
Beyond salaries, staff described expenditure reductions and one‑time receipts used to balance the budget: reassigning some grant‑funded positions back to federal grants (Claude Moore grant and other federal carryover), trimming software subscriptions, lowering dual‑enrollment costs after the state fully funded those fees, projecting fuel savings, and realizing recurring rental income from a county purchase (Blackjack Road) with about $38,000 per year in lease receipts. Staff said those actions, together with restoring a $3 million pool for salary laps and other adjustments, would close the remaining gap if local revenue commitments are final.
Staff stressed the school division still projects an approximate $15 million gap relative to the board‑approved expenditure levels before these adjustments and asked the school board to adopt an FY26 budget contingent on the local funding assumptions. The board planned to take action on the budget at its regular meeting the same evening.
