Isle of Wight superintendent proposes FY26 operating budget, seeks 3% pay raise and larger health fund

Isle of Wight County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Kramer on Feb. 24 presented the superintendent's proposed FY26 operating budget to the school board at Westside Elementary School, asking the board to weigh raises, higher health‑insurance contributions, staffing increases and capital projects and reminding members that the Board of Supervisors must appropriate funds before any increase takes effect.

"This is the superintendent's proposed budget and is merely the first public discussion of the FY '26 proposed operating budget," Dr. Kramer said, adding that "Funds are only made available once the board of supervisors approves the operating budget and appropriates the funds." The presentation kicked off a wide-ranging work session with board members asking for more detail on items including special education staffing, health‑insurance costs, weapons‑detection equipment and capital projects.

The nut graf: Dr. Kramer framed the request around three funding trends: Isle of Wight's relatively high local composite index (indicating greater local ability to pay), the division's low per‑pupil funding compared with regional peers, and the end of one‑time federal COVID relief (ESSER) dollars. He cited a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) finding that Virginia provides less K‑12 funding per pupil than the national average after normalizing for labor costs, and he urged the board and supervisors to consider returning local support toward pre‑pandemic levels.

The most detailed budget items presented were:

- Compensation and benefits: A proposed 3% salary increase for educators, presented as matching a proposal from the Virginia General Assembly and governor. Dr. Kramer presented the estimated total budgetary increase for the 3% pay step as $781,003 (total delta budget to budget). He also identified a proposed increase in the school division's health fund of $1,663,491 (presentation figure) to stabilize premiums for employees while noting the school has not yet received an insurer renewal.

- Required operating changes: Dr. Kramer listed required budget increases the division calls essential to maintain current services, including the salary and health fund increases, a local textbook match increase of $309,798 and negotiated purchase‑services increases of $84,688.

- Staffing and program requests: The superintendent asked for additions and adjustments targeted at student supports and operational needs: reading and math interventionists (two positions currently funded by a governor grant that will not continue), library assistants for elementary schools, Career and Technical Education (CTE) positions to support programs such as the Governor's Lab School and the Isle Maritime Trades Academy (IMTA), and two additional school security officers (SSOs) to staff weapons‑detection systems at the high‑school level.

- Human resources and retention: Dr. Kramer emphasized the division is understaffed in human resources and cited a recommended ratio of 1 HR staff per 100 employees; Isle of Wight is staffed at approximately 1 per 228 (presented as 800:3.5 vs. recommended 100:1). He requested funding to improve pay for multiple educator groups and stipends to help retention and recruitment.

- Capital needs (CIP and one‑time requests): The presentation carried forward many capital requests from the prior year and a few new items. Examples included more buses (noting roughly one in three buses has exceeded a 15‑year, 300,000‑mile expected lifespan), a Fleet Services building upgrade (original structure built 1952–1955 and too small for modern lifts/buses), HVAC projects (Carrollton Elementary cited), athletic track and field work, and a Smithfield High band‑room renovation (the band room built in 1982 and not upgraded since). Dr. Kramer described these as long‑lived investments (projects lasting 15–30 years) and characterized the CIP requests as largely one‑time, nonrecurring items.

- School safety equipment: The superintendent requested funding for expanded weapons‑detection systems at middle and high schools, and the board discussed the related staffing implications — that additional SSOs would be required to operate systems during arrival times and throughout the school day. Cost figures for detection equipment were discussed in general terms during Q&A; exact unit counts and total pricing for all systems were not finalized in the presentation and were described by staff as "to be clarified." (Citizens and board members asked for precise descriptions of what would be procured for the amounts shown.)

Board members pressed for more detail. Questions and requests included: a clearer breakdown of the health‑fund projection and premium impacts for employees; comparative cost‑of‑living and regional pay benchmarks; the list and cost estimates for specific CIP items (including the band room); why special‑education aid needs far exceed the SOQ (Standards of Quality) allocation; and a line‑by‑line justification for some training, travel and supplies figures. School staff said additional detail and updated schedules would be distributed to board members in the coming days.

Dr. Kramer and staff also outlined the next steps and schedule: a continued work session on Feb. 27, a follow‑up work session, a public hearing on March 6, the regularly scheduled board meeting on March 13 and a vote to approve the budget on March 18 (dates subject to change). Dr. Kramer emphasized that board adoption and final funding from the Board of Supervisors are separate steps.

Votes at this meeting: The only formal action at the Feb. 24 special meeting was approval of the open‑session agenda. The motion to approve the agenda was called and approved by roll call with four board members recorded as voting yes and one member absent. No formal votes on the FY26 budget occurred at this session; the board scheduled further work sessions and a public hearing before any adoption vote.

Board members and staff signaled continued debate ahead on the scale of pay increases, the share of county funding to restore, and how to prioritize capital requests if the full package is not funded. Staff committed to providing more detailed cost breakdowns, health‑fund renewal information when available, and clarifications about the number and placement of weapons‑detection systems and corresponding SSO staffing needs.

The superintendent closed by reiterating the division's view that restoring local support to near pre‑pandemic levels is critical now that ESSER funds have ended and that the proposed FY26 package is intended to maintain essential services and address operational shortfalls rather than to fund aspirational projects.