King William school board presents $4.2 million FY26 request, flags staffing, safety and facilities needs

Miss Catlett, a member of the King William County School Board, presented the school division’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget during a joint meeting with the King William County Board of Supervisors, saying, “On behalf of our school board, we are pleased to join you this evening to present to you a culmination of many months, the school board FY 26 proposed budget for your review and consideration.”

The presentation, led by Miss Catlett and school budget staff member Miss Longest, laid out roughly $4.2 million in new or requested items for FY26 before deferred amounts and multi-year asks. Miss Longest described the budget process and priorities, saying, “Our budget process really starts pretty much as soon as we get in the one budget in. We’re already working on calendar for the next year.”

Why it matters: county and school leaders said growing student enrollment, rising personnel costs and mandated instructional-material requirements are creating recurring operational pressure and new capital needs. The board and presenters repeatedly linked staffing requests—additional paraprofessionals, behavioral supports and school security staff—to classroom management, special-education compliance and retention of teachers.

Key requests and staff explanations

- Total request and timing: Presenters summarized an initial FY26 ask of about $4.2 million; roughly $2.1 million of that was deferred to FY27 and $326,000 to FY28, according to the slides shown.

- Staffing: The division asked for additional positions including paraprofessionals (bringing some currently contracted positions in-house), a behavioral support specialist (proposed initially one for elementary and one for secondary), additional special-education staff tied to IEP needs, reading support staff and extra bus drivers and aides to respond to growth in routes and discipline issues on buses.

- Compensation and retirement costs: Presenters noted state-mandated or recommended salary changes, including a two-year state salary program (referred to as a 3% state increase) and the school division’s responsibilities for Virginia Retirement System (VRS) employer rates. As the presentation stated, “Our VRS rate for teachers ... is 14.21,” with additional matching percentages discussed as budget drivers.

- Safety and security: The school asked for funding for two school security officers and metal-detection equipment at middle and high schools. Presenters cautioned that the security grant the division applies for (through the state grant process) historically prioritizes SROs and that “the chances of us getting that grant are probably very slim,” so the budget includes local funding as a contingency.

- Capital requests and facilities: Capital asks included technology replacement (a recurring annual technology grant noted in the presentation), building repairs and improvements (listed at roughly $1.09 million on the slide set), athletic and field work tied to a turf project (presenters referenced $1.6 million in related field work and ongoing payments for a turf project), and bus and activity-bus purchases. The presentation also included a proposed cosmetology program to be housed on campus, with initial renovation estimates discussed and alternative delivery options (including a modular/trailer solution) noted as being explored.

- Instructional materials and textbook fund: The presenters noted the textbook fund is restricted and that the division has purchased Virginia Literacy Act materials (one-year cost called out at $290,000). They also referenced potential state legislation that would require purchase of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) vetted by the Department of Education for reading, math, science and social studies, which could add significant, legally directed costs.

Discussion and constraints

Board members and staff questioned cost details and implementation approaches. On the cosmetology program, supervisors asked whether continuing to contract out the course could be cheaper than renovating classroom space; presenters said renovation scope and plumbing/electrical work could be costly and that a phased approach or a trailer option was under review.

Presenters emphasized demographic pressure: the division expects ongoing enrollment growth and said it may need another bus route each year if growth continues. Officials also noted long-term debt and capital limits, reporting the school division is “sitting currently at $24,000,000 in debt over the next 30 years,” and stressing that large new construction (for example, a new high school) would carry much larger financing needs.

What was decided at the meeting

No appropriation or final vote on the FY26 budget was recorded during the joint presentation. The formal procedural actions captured in the meeting record were adoption of the meeting agenda and the meeting’s adjournment; the budget presentation was for review and discussion only.

Next steps and follow-up

Presenters asked supervisors what additional information they would like and said they would provide detailed backup and a draft facilities feasibility report when available; the presenters noted a Department of Education facility feasibility draft was expected in the coming weeks. Staff also said they would continue to apply annually for state safety grants despite low odds of award and to return with appropriation requests if and when supervisors approved funding.