Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DPS seeks $15.9M increase; county manager proposes $10.3M and 3.5¢ tax rate step
Summary
Durham Public Schools on Tuesday presented its 2025‑26 budget request to the Board of County Commissioners, emphasizing teacher and staff compensation, transportation and school infrastructure.
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham Public Schools on Tuesday presented its 2025‑26 budget request to the Board of County Commissioners, emphasizing teacher and staff compensation, transportation and school infrastructure. The district asked for an increase in current expense funding (roughly $15.9 million in the materials presented) and continuity for capital outlay; Durham County Manager Hager proposed a $10.3 million increase and a separate $10 million one‑time capital allocation while recommending a 3.5‑cent property tax rate increase to help cover countywide priorities.
Superintendent Dr. Lewis said improving compensation and retention for teachers and staff is a top priority. “Teachers matter,” he told commissioners, framing salary increases and targeted supplements as investments in student outcomes. Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Teeter walked commissioners through the district’s fiscal history and the board‑approved budget request the school board transmitted to the county on April 24.
Key elements of DPS request and county recommendations: - DPS asked for a continuation budget plus expansion items that the district reported would total about $15.0–$16.0 million for current expenses (materials round to roughly $15,000,009 and related figures shown in the district budget book). The district also sought continuation of capital outlay funding and other program investments. - The district’s requested expansions include increasing the local teacher supplement, a proposed $200‑per‑month supplement for bus drivers to stabilize pay, expanded local master’s‑degree pay for certain staff groups, restored funding for social‑emotional supports (Panorama, RethinkEd, partnerships with the Center for Child and Family Health), and additional support for exceptional children services. - Jeremy Teeter said a $2.2 million package would raise the teacher local supplement by $70 per month (about $700 per school year) for each eligible teacher; the district also asked for coverage of locally funded master’s pay for employees who were previously excluded. - Durham County Manager Jackie Hager recommended $10.3 million in additional recurring current‑expense funding for DPS, restoring some one‑time items used in 2024 and proposing a $6.0 million recurring capital outlay restoration and a $10.0 million one‑time capital improvement allocation for pressing deferred maintenance and pre‑bond planning. “I did propose a 3.5¢ property tax rate increase,” Manager Hager said, explaining the county’s fiscal approach to cover multiple service demands across departments.
Why it matters: The staff request and county recommendation underscore a fiscal gap between what DPS says it needs to maintain and improve services and what county government can provide within current revenue projections. The county manager and commissioners noted national and local revenue headwinds — including slower sales‑tax growth and a large property revaluation that produced a revenue‑neutral rate — that complicate long‑term planning.
Discussion points, unanswered questions and next steps: Commissioners and school officials discussed workforce strategies and professional development for new teachers, benchmarking against peer districts, the status of state funding for exceptional children (DPS officials said the state caps support at 13 percent and the district currently spends above that cap), and Medicaid reimbursements for special‑education services (Teeter said a recent settlement produced a little over $4 million).
Manager Hager flagged next steps in the county budget process: a public hearing on May 27, a series of budget work sessions in late May and early June and a planned adoption on June 9. Several commissioners urged ongoing joint advocacy to the General Assembly for expanded state funding, warning that local taxpayers alone cannot cover multi‑hundred‑million dollar facility and operational shortfalls.
No formal county appropriation or final vote on the budget occurred at the joint meeting; the county manager transmitted his recommended budget to commissioners and the matter will move through public hearings and work sessions before final action.

