Finance committee presents FY26 budget recommendation to Bedford County School Board; warns of $4.3 million shortfall and lists possible cuts

The Bedford County School Board’s finance committee presented its recommended operating budget for fiscal 2026 at a Jan. 29 special work session, telling the full board the division needs roughly $4.3 million in additional ongoing funding to achieve the committee’s initial package of pay adjustments, health insurance increases and program additions.

Finance committee representative Mister Hagler and members of the division’s executive team led the presentation and said the document is a recommendation for discussion; the board will reconvene next week to consider adjustments and vote to forward a request to the Bedford County Board of Supervisors. Hagler said state budget action is still pending and that the division is watching the governor’s, house and senate proposals for final numbers.

Key figures and priorities presented by staff and the finance committee:

- Teacher pay and retention: The division ranks 107 out of 131 Virginia school divisions for teacher salary and 16 out of 20 in Region 5, the presentation said. The committee calculated an average teacher-pay gap of about $4,175 below the state average and noted larger gaps at later steps (the presentation cited roughly $6,374 at the 25-year step). Staff said the local retention rate for teachers is about 84 percent and that most attrition occurs in the first five years of service.

- Per-pupil spending and outcomes: Staff said Bedford County spends less per pupil than many neighboring divisions (presentation language: ranking near the bottom of state per-pupil spending) while the division’s academic performance remains in the upper third of the state; the executive team credited instructional prioritization for those outcomes.

- State funding and Standards of Quality (SOQ): Presenters explained the state funds certain SOQ positions at a minimum level that often does not match local practice or need. As an example, the state funds 19 principal positions while Bedford County operates 21 schools; that difference is roughly $250,000 of local funding each year, staff said. The presentation described a long-running gap between what the state’s formula funds and what divisions say it actually costs to operate schools.

- Reversion and maintenance reserve: Staff and the county have been building a maintenance reserve in advance of a funding “reversion” expected to remove a roughly $8 million operating advantage beginning in the 2028–29 timeframe. The board and county are placing money into reserves now to avoid a single-year cut when the reversion occurs.

- Major budget pressures: Over the last five years the presentation showed county operating support has dropped by roughly $2.7 million while inflation across the same period was roughly 21 percent and state funding has increased about 33 percent (staff emphasized those state increases have strings attached and do not necessarily cover local priorities). Other upward cost drivers noted: health-insurance claims (staff projected an additional 7 percent increase next year), bus purchases and repairs (per-bus cost cited rising from about $100,000 to about $135,000), increased software costs and higher wages for low-paid classifications.

- Proposed compensation action: The committee recommended a 3 percent compensation package that combines step progression and a cost-of-living element; the committee said the state would only fund part of that increase and the division must cover the remainder locally. Committee members also put an illustrative additional 1 percent cost-of-living increase on the table (the committee estimated that additional 1 percent at roughly $845,000).

- Request and shortfall: With the committee’s blue/yellow/green package (technical adjustments, recommended restorations and new items), staff said the division requires about $4.3 million more than current local and projected state revenue to fund the full package. Hagler told the board that if funding does not materialize the staff provided a list of potential cuts and “what-if” scenarios for board consideration.

Potential reductions presented as examples (not recommendations): eliminate nonessential line items from the presented package (roughly $1.4 million), increase class sizes (the staff example showed raising averages that would eliminate roughly 17 teaching positions), delay or close specific facilities (an illustrative school-closure calculation shown at roughly $840,000) and program consolidations tied to career-and-technical-education (CTE) centers. Staff explicitly labeled those items as “options if funding falls short.”

Other items discussed during the presentation:

- Chromebooks and instructional devices: Several board members asked for a fiscal estimate of limiting Chromebook take-home policies (for example, requiring devices to remain at school except for special projects) and for an estimate of the savings if devices were used only in schools. Staff said they would return with a calculation.

- Dual-enrollment and CVCC: Discussion touched on dual-enrollment contracts; a board member asked staff to review whether current arrangements with outside providers remain the most cost-effective given recent state changes to dual-enrollment funding.

- School resource officers: The presentation noted a state grant had helped fund School Resource Officers (SROs) but that the grant phases down to 33 percent coverage and then ends; staff warned the recurring local obligation could approach $800,000 to $900,000 in coming years if the county must absorb the full cost.

- Nutrition and textbook funds: Staff said the nutrition fund is under pressure from inflation and wage increases and that the textbook fund is being managed to smooth multi-year digital and print adoptions.

The finance committee’s presentation concluded with a request that board members review the recommended package, submit any new items they want costed, and be prepared to return next week with final adjustments so the board can vote and forward a funding request to the Board of Supervisors. Hagler emphasized the committee and staff had prepared the materials to show tradeoffs and to begin community discussion: “these are not recommended cuts right now,” he said; “these are potential things our school board will have to consider” if additional funds are not provided.

The board did not take a final budget vote at the Jan. 29 meeting; members asked for additional data (Chromebook cost estimates, middle-school sports and SRO cost timing, and dual-enrollment contract options) ahead of next week’s meeting.