Craven County Board of Education approves 2025–26 budget, keeps counselors, nurses and assistant principals funded

The Craven County Board of Education voted 5–2 on May 13 to approve the district’s 2025–26 budget as presented, adopting a spending plan that preserves most student‑support positions while relying in part on fund balance.

The vote followed several hours of presentation and debate over staffing levels, central‑office positions and contingency revenue. The board approved the budget with five members voting yes and two members voting no.

The adopted budget keeps funding in place for all guidance counselors, 23 nurses, four social workers and 35 assistant principals, according to staff presentations and board discussion. Staff also said an additional $250,000 in projected fines and forfeitures was added to next year’s revenue estimates, a change that reduces the budget’s reliance on fund balance.

Board discussion and staff presentation Stacy Lee, a district staff member who presented the budget, told the board the central‑office staffing roster shown in the presentation reflects positions across multiple funding sources and that the district counted 83 central‑office positions across budgets this year, with a net increase of 15 positions in the proposed budget. Lee also told the board that he had spoken with county staff and that “fines and forfeitures are trending up,” and that the budget now shows “an increase of $250,000.”

Several board members pressed staff on the relationship between state allotments and locally funded positions. Board member Lauren Kitzinger said the board and public needed clarity on what the local current‑expense budget actually pays for and how state allotments affect local obligations. Kitzinger noted that the state allotment covers 12 assistant principals but the district currently employs roughly 33–35 APs, meaning many AP salaries are funded locally.

Counselors, nurses and costs Staff told the board the state school‑health personnel allotment is 28 positions (including a nursing position), while, as presented to the board, the district has roughly 37 counselors. Lee said the “total annual cost for all 37 counselors … is in excess of $3,000,000,” which includes salary, retirement and benefits.

Board members repeatedly raised the district’s use of local dollars to maintain positions added after 2020. Kitzinger asked for clarity on which positions are state‑funded versus locally funded; the presentation and subsequent answers made clear the district is paying many positions out of local current‑expense dollars when state or federal funds are not available.

Athletics and athletic trainers Board members also questioned athletics spending during the budget debate. The budget proposes to continue the athletic‑trainer contract. When asked about the size of that contract, a staff member described the total as “$2.23 or $2.26 and some change.” The district said the contract covers coverage required by the North Carolina High School Athletic Association for selected high‑school sports and that models vary by district; district staff said some districts have first responders overseen by an athletic trainer, while others employ full‑time athletic trainers at high schools.

Charter funding and fund balance Staff explained the formula used to send local and state funding to charter schools: state money follows the student; local funding is calculated from the county appropriation and must be distributed monthly to charter operators for Craven County students enrolled in charter schools. Board members flagged concern about continued reliance on the fund balance; several members said they expect follow‑up work to reduce the use of fund balance in future cycles.

Public comments Members of the public who spoke during the public‑input portion urged the board to “ask for what the students need.” Anne Healy, a retired physician who spoke during public input, addressed the board directly: “Ask for what the students need. Do not second guess the county … It is your job to convince the county of the needs for the funds that you request.”

Formal action A motion to accept the 2025–26 budget as presented carried by roll call: Amy Davis (yes), Darlene Gibbs (yes), Lee Kirkman (yes), Patty Mason (yes), Lorie Spies (yes); Jennifer Dacey (no), Laura Kitzinger (no). The motion’s mover was not specified on the transcript; the second on the motion was recorded as Amy Davis. The outcome was recorded as approved.

Why it matters Board members said the budget preserves core student supports for the coming school year but left unresolved questions about long‑term sustainability and how many positions the district must continue to fund locally. Several board members asked staff for follow‑up information about contracts, the number and cost of existing contracts, and whether contracting processes (for example, best‑value versus lowest‑cost procurement) might reduce future spending.

Next steps Board members asked staff to provide additional detail on contracts and on the drivers of fund‑balance reliance. The board and staff indicated a goal of reducing reliance on the fund balance in future budget cycles, and members signaled they will continue to press state leaders about funding formulas.