Washington County school leaders propose FY26 budget that would use millions in fund balance, pursue teacher-pay mandates and keep free lunch program

Washington County school officials presented a draft fiscal 2026 budget at a board workshop that would rely on millions in fund balance to close a projected gap, incorporate state-driven increases to teacher pay and keep the district-funded universal free-lunch program unless the board or county commission provides more money.

The draft, presented by Brad, chief finance officer, projects revenues and other sources below planned expenditures and would require using several million dollars of fund balance to balance the budget. Brad told the board the revenue totals are based on a 12-month look-back of actual receipts and that one-time reimbursements included in FY25 will not recur, including a roughly $946,000 final reimbursement the district received last year.

Why it matters: The draft budget must be submitted to the mayor by May 1 under the county schedule; the board must decide whether to send the draft as presented, request county assistance or trim expenditures. Board members and staff repeatedly warned that using a large share of fund balance would reduce reserves below the district’s comfort level and force program cuts or larger class sizes next year.

Board members and staff described three central pressures shaping the draft: (1) a state-mandated rise in minimum starting teacher pay that adds roughly $2.7 million to certified payroll in the current proposal; (2) local costs such as rising utilities, maintenance and one-off capital projects; and (3) district decisions to continue universal free lunch for students, which would require a transfer from the general fund if federal/state reimbursements decline.

Brad said the FY26 revenue total shown in the draft is a look-back-based figure and that sales-tax receipts have risen compared with the prior year. He also pointed to one-time federal/state reimbursements that will not repeat in FY26. “That $946,000 goes away this year,” he said. He added that the district is trying to be more precise by budgeting actual payroll and recent revenue patterns rather than using broad percentage uplifts.

On personnel costs, the draft includes several pay changes: a plan to raise the district’s minimum hourly wage for noncertified entry-level positions by $1 (from $14.46 to $15.46), a district proposal tying noncertified management and certified management positions to a flat $2,000 increase rather than a percentage, and continued work to reach the state’s new minimum starting teacher salary schedule (the state minimum moves toward a $50,000 floor and higher benchmarks in FY27). Brad and other staff told the board that moving toward the state minimum will require multi-year increases and that neighboring districts are also raising pay.

The board discussed substitute pay and transportation pay changes. Brad said a proposed $7.50 per route increase for bus drivers and adjustments to substitutes could be funded within the draft without materially increasing the use of fund balance because substitution lines had been under budget in recent months.

Maintenance and operations drew extensive discussion. Board members and staff noted that several maintenance object lines have remained underfunded relative to actual recent spending; staff proposed adjusting those lines to a five-year average plus 20 percent to better reflect reality. Brad warned that aging buildings and deferred maintenance can force year-end transfers from fund balance if projects are approved during the year.

Food service and the universal free-lunch program were central. Brad told the board that if the district keeps universal free lunches for all students, the general fund transfer could be about $1 million next year; if the program reverts to free/reduced eligibility rules, the transfer could fall sharply. “If you keep it as it is, I think you’ve got to leave that million dollars in there,” he said. Board members discussed asking the county commission for reimbursement of some of the cost; staff said the commission helped fund the program in the current year and could be asked again.

The board debated directing outcome-based (TISA) funds to teachers’ classroom budgets. A motion was made to guarantee an additional $100 per teacher (to be added on top of existing per-teacher allocations). The maker and seconder were recorded in the workshop but not identified in the transcript excerpt; a second was audible. The board then held a roll-call vote. The transcript records “Yes” votes from Barnes, Irvin, Hammond and Huddlestone and “No” votes from Masters, Riddle, Walters and Buchanan; other votes were not specified in the excerpt. The motion did not pass.

On timing and next steps, staff said updated drafts incorporating board feedback will be distributed before the board’s May workshop and special call. Brad told the board the staff can revise maintenance lines, reflect new averages and include any agreed increases. The board and staff agreed to a follow-up workshop/call the following Tuesday evening; staff reminded members that the municipal/administrative deadline to transmit a budget to the mayor is May 1.

Quotes reflected in this report are taken verbatim from the workshop transcript and attributed only to speakers listed in the board workshop record. The draft budget will be revised at staff direction and return to the board for further action.

Ending: Staff will provide an updated budget incorporating the board’s maintenance-line adjustments and other requested changes at the next scheduled workshop; the board will decide whether to forward the draft budget to the mayor or seek county assistance to cover projected shortfalls.