Madison County schools ask county for $959,461 as enrollment falls

Madison County Superintendent Miss Graham told the Board of Supervisors on an FY26 budget preview that Madison County Schools is asking the county for $959,461 in additional operating funds, citing a steady drop in student enrollment and higher benefit and operating costs.

The superintendent said all federal ESSER funds and extra state "All In Virginia" dollars that temporarily supplemented budgets have ended. "All ESSER spending is gone and done. That ended in September of this school year," Miss Graham said. She told supervisors the division is built on a prior enrollment number of 1,620 but is currently serving about 1,542 students and anticipates about 1,520 for next year.

The request, Miss Graham said, covers a recommended 3% pay increase, a 3.9% rise in health-insurance costs the division proposes to absorb, targeted pay adjustments (including raising starting pay for CDL bus drivers to $20 per hour) and a package of technology and security items. Miss Graham said salaries for a full year would be roughly $359,000 and benefits about $248,685 within the division’s increase; she described the total additional cost as $959,461.

Why it matters: the superintendent warned the board that, without added local funding, the system will have to continue eliminating positions or programs. "Since I've been here, we've cut 9 positions in the past 6 years that's equaled, $697,563 just to make our budget work," Miss Graham said. She listed past cuts including a director of administration, a data specialist, and instructional positions.

Board members questioned the division’s enrollment assumptions and state revenue projections. Supervisor Lehi, during a detailed breakdown, said his calculation showed the county would need to fund $10,672,926 — an increase of $351,851 over the prior year — and described how that would translate to tax impact. "My number comes up with the county needing, to fund 10,672,926, which is an increase of 351,851 over last year," Lehi said.

Supervisors and school staff differed over some baseline numbers reported at the state level. Miss Graham told the board the state’s projected average daily membership (ADM) for FY26 — shown on HB 1600 materials — had not matched local estimates: "Our numbers that they've had on there have never matched what we end up having. Right." Several supervisors asked staff for a clearer, line-by-line superintendent’s recommended budget in Excel so they could compare state and local projections side by side.

The presentation included specific line items the schools plan to request: about $78,000 for website/security/Wi‑Fi controllers (moved from the CIP into operations), continued funding for special education increases and utilities, and the compensation and benefit changes described above. Miss Graham also summarized that the division’s budget assumes a per‑student local contribution of about $7,641–$7,672 depending on final enrollment and state revenue figures.

Discussion focused on tradeoffs. Supervisors asked whether to use unencumbered fund balance, carryover audit funds, or raise the tax rate. Miss Graham noted the division has absorbed previous savings and one‑time funding, saying the schools received roughly $1.2 million from the county over recent years that smoothed shortfalls. Board members and the school team discussed the capital needs separately (CIP) and the potential for delaying some capital work if operations require more local support.

No formal vote was taken on the schools’ request at this meeting. Board members asked for revised school budget materials reflecting the latest state actions (HB 1600 as reported to the county) and for more line‑item detail before the county makes a funding decision. Miss Graham said she would provide an updated superintendent's recommended budget after the school board completes its review.

Ending note: school leaders emphasized the human impact of further cuts — to programs and staff — and asked supervisors to consider the projected revenue changes from HB 1600, carryover funds, and the county’s tax-rate decision before finalizing FY26 appropriations.