School board approves $244.6 million FY25–26 budget; SRO staffing and teacher raises discussed
Loading...
Summary
Suffolk school board adopted a $244,554,074 budget for fiscal year 2025–26, including $82,332,201 of local funding. The meeting featured extended discussion about funding and staffing for school resource officers, teacher raises, a possible state one‑time bonus and timing constraints for adopting changes tied to state action.
The Suffolk City Public Schools Board voted March 27 to approve a fiscal year 2025–26 budget totaling $244,554,074, including $82,332,201 in local funding from the city of Suffolk.
Board members approved the budget by motion of board member Riddick, seconded by Jenkins. Before the vote the board held extended discussion about how the budget treats school resource officers (SROs), teacher salaries and a potential state one‑time bonus. The resolution passed on a recorded vote.
Superintendent Dr. Gordon and finance staff explained that the requested local figure depends partly on an expected city decision about how many SROs the Suffolk Police Department can provide. "The city is going to determine how many school resource officers they will be able to support us with," Dr. Gordon said. The board had asked for funding to support 11 elementary SROs; staff said the city may be able to provide fewer officers initially and that the sheriff's deputies already visit elementary schools as supplemental coverage.
Board members and staff discussed possible short‑term alternatives if the police department cannot supply all 11 officers, including extra‑duty overtime assignments for off‑duty officers and phased implementation over multiple years. "Worst case scenario, our sheriff's deputies will still be in our schools. We're just trying to be able to provide additional support by having as many SROs that the Suffolk Police Department can spare," Dr. Gordon said.
The budget also drew debate over teacher compensation. The approved budget as presented uses a 3–3.5% increase for teacher pay as the baseline; several board members urged the division to seek a higher increase if additional funds arrive from the state. Staff said the division's goal is to apply any additional state funding to teacher pay and that a 5–5.5% target had been requested by some board members. Finance staff warned that some state funding, if provided, may be earmarked for specific purposes. The board discussed a one‑time state bonus under consideration in the General Assembly — a $1,000 per SOQ position proposal — and the administrative challenges if it becomes final in the current fiscal year.
Superintendent Dr. Gordon outlined timing constraints: the board must submit its budget to the city on April 1 and final changes relying on state action may not be possible before the city and school adoption deadlines. Staff emphasized that some large expense categories (purchase services, preventative maintenance and ongoing contracts) have limited flexibility without direct impacts to services and facilities.
The motion to adopt the resolution (listed in meeting materials as resolution 24/25‑23) passed on a roll call. Board members asked staff to return with refined plans for SRO deployment and with options for how additional state funds would be applied to raises or other priorities if and when those funds are confirmed.
The board majority approved the budget resolution, setting the division's FY25–26 revenue and spending plan and directing staff to continue negotiations with city leadership and law‑enforcement partners about SRO staffing levels.
