Mathews County leaders debate funding route to raise teacher pay from 3% to 5%

Mathews County officials and school representatives met to clarify how a proposed 5% pay increase for teachers would be funded, discussing a state-provided 3% allocation under the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and a proposed additional 2% from local funds that would bring the total to 5%.

The debate centered on cost, budget trade-offs and whether the extra local share should come from the school division’s existing budget or from higher local taxes. Officials at the meeting said the additional 2% to raise teachers from 3% to 5% would cost $97,558. A broader 5% increase for “everyone except admin” was presented as $534,023.03, although members noted that the FY26 budget already included a 3% increase of $342,734, creating a delta that must be reconciled.

The state match. Meeting participants repeatedly referenced the SOQ funding framework, which the presenters described as providing a 3% raise that must be certified for positions covered by the SOQ if the locality wants the state funds to be activated. One speaker said, “It’s 3% for SOQ,” and staff clarified that SOQ funding applies to many position categories and that local certification rules require all SOQ-funded positions to receive the state-funded increase in order to draw the state money.

Local share and calculations. Presenters and board members worked through spreadsheet figures on the floor: the $97,558 figure was identified as the cost to move teachers specifically from 3% to 5%, and an administrator-presented figure of $534,023.03 was described as the total cost to move everyone except administration to 5% (the presenters said that total did not include any additional amount for health insurance). Several supervisors noted the need to subtract the 3% already budgeted ($342,734) from the $534,023.03 figure to find the true additional local cost, an amount one speaker calculated as roughly $191,288.

How to pay for it. Some supervisors said they would support the $97,558 to raise teachers to 5% but only if the school division trimmed its internal budget to find the money rather than the county raising taxes. “I wanna see the teacher get a 5% pay increase. I wanna see you all cut your budget, and that’s where the pay increase comes from. Not the county agreeing to put another penny tax on the taxpayers,” said Mister Doss, Board member. Other members urged a joint look at administrative columns and asked the school division to consider administrative cuts to free resources for compensation.

Budget pressure and tax-rate discussion. The discussion also touched on the county tax rate: board members discussed a previously proposed 4¢ real-estate tax increase and whether a 5¢ increase would be more prudent to cover uncertain shortfalls (for example, a possible $300,000 state shortfall if the governor does not sign a budget). One supervisor urged the board to consider 5¢ rather than 4¢ to avoid repeating midyear operating shortfalls.

Maintenance and custodial funding. The meeting included repeated questions about the schools’ maintenance budget, custodial contracts and how outsourcing custodial services would affect operating costs. Officials discussed a previous maintenance number near $1.6 million and a proposed maintenance figure closer to $1.0 million; custodial-related line items discussed in the meeting included a custodial total around $600,000, a reported $407,000 for employee-related custodial costs, and cleaning supplies budgeted near $75,000. County and school representatives said they would reconcile where the differences came from and how outsourced custodial services would affect billing and maintenance responsibilities.

Process and next steps. Several participants urged improved timing and transparency in future budget rounds: provide lower, earlier estimates and hold line-item leadership meetings to align county and school priorities. One school board member proposed a needs assessment of administrative positions to clarify titles, responsibilities and potential savings. Officials requested additional detail on the Local Composite Index (LCI) and how much of the state-provided raise the state will actually pay for the division (participants cited that the state’s 3% might translate to the locality receiving only a portion, which would increase the required local share).

No formal votes were recorded during the portion of the meeting transcribed. Participants agreed to continue analysis and return with refined figures on the local delta needed to reach 5% for teachers and the budget implications of any tax-rate change.