Surry County college and school leaders seek millions for buildings, new alternative program and teacher pay in budget presentations

Surry Community College and the county's three public school systems presented their 2025–26 funding requests and program proposals to the Surry County Board of Commissioners during the board's third budget session on April 20.

Surry Community College President David Shockley told commissioners the college's operating request primarily reflects inflationary increases, salary adjustments to match state pay rates and payouts for upcoming retirements. Shockley outlined a proposed full gut-and‑rehab of the campus T-building housing the early college and science labs, estimating the project at about $11–12 million including an $8 million state allocation; he said construction inflation has pushed the estimated shortfall to roughly $3,380,000. He again asked the county to resume an earlier proposal to set aside $250,000 yearly as a reserve the county would hold for future college capital needs.

Surry County Schools Superintendent Travis Reiser presented the district's budget request and a package of special requests. The district's proposed current‑expense request totaled $9,918,000, a $656,000 increase over the prior year, and the district said that amount equals roughly $1,425 per student under the request on file with the county. Reiser highlighted three special requests: $800,000 in supplemental funds (about $500,000 targeted to increase teacher supplements and $300,000 for retention bonuses and supplements for pre‑K and classified staff); a $35 million special capital request to begin phase‑1 construction at Surry Central High School and East Surry High School (initial work targeting cafeteria and kitchen space); and a request for a new joint alternative learning program for the county's three school systems, for which Reiser asked county funding of $500,000 in year one.

Reiser described the alternative program as a multi‑phase, multi‑district effort to serve students who struggle in traditional classrooms by combining on‑site instruction, virtual learning, therapeutic supports and community partnerships. He said the districts envision serving about 60 students in year one, with staff including a program administrator, teachers, clerical support and mental/behavioral‑health providers; the districts have not yet identified a facility.

Elkin City Schools Superintendent Steve Hall requested maintaining capital outlay at the current per‑pupil allocation (the district cited a $314 per‑student capital outlay allotment under the county model) and asked for a $55 increase in the district's current‑expense rate to $1,375 per student, which the district said would yield a total request of $1,208,625 based on projected in‑district enrollment. Hall reviewed past cuts, enrollment trends (the district projects 879 in‑district students for the next year), and recent steps that increased Elkin's fund balance to roughly $308,000. He also recounted the district's historical supplemental tax adjustments and answered commissioners' questions about out‑of‑district students and overcrowding at Elkin Elementary.

Mount Airy City Schools Superintendent Olivia Sykes presented the city's requests, saying the district projects 1,723 students and is seeking a per‑student current‑expense rate of $1,335 and a capital‑outlay request of $340 per student. Mount Airy asked the county to contribute one‑third of the local share to fund an additional school resource officer (SRO) the district said it has already onboarded for Therrington Primary; the county share requested was $28,333. Sykes said, “71% of our money goes straight into classrooms,” and the district affirmed support for the joint alternative learning program proposal.

Several presenters referenced SurryAC and Works (the regional workforce/education partnership housed with Surry Community College) and described its expansion and local employer connections as evidence of workforce development successes; Surry Community College and school leaders asked the county to continue or expand predictable, ongoing local contributions for those programs.

Votes at a glance - Resolution opposing House Bill 765 (motion by Commissioner Goins; second by Commissioner Hyatt): commissioners approved the resolution expressing opposition to parts of HB 765 that the board said would limit local land‑use authority. (Motion carried.) - Do not hold optional April 29 budget work session (motion by Commissioner Goins; second by Commissioner Tucker): motion carried. - Approval of agenda at start of meeting (motion by Commissioner Tucker; second by Commissioner Goins): motion carried. - Motion to adjourn (motion by Commissioner Goins; second by Commissioner Tucker): motion carried.

Why it matters: these budget requests include large capital asks and a proposed new countywide program that would create an alternative placement and wraparound services for students at risk of dropping out or unable to succeed in traditional classrooms. Decisions by the Board of Commissioners on the county contribution and on capital funding will affect school facility planning, staffing and program start dates.

What commissioners asked and next steps Commissioners asked presenters for more detail on program sizes, facility plans, transportation and likely recurring costs; several asked for written follow‑up with cost breakdowns and implementation plans. The board did not take final funding votes on school budgets during the session; commissioners instructed staff and will use the county's budget process and upcoming hearings to consider the requests, alongside the resolution they approved expressing concerns about HB 765.

The board's packet and presentations remain the record for specific line‑item requests and enrollment projections; several presenters said external grants (state grants, Connect NC bond funds, lottery funds or ESSER funds in prior years) currently contribute to projects but that the district or college still need local funds to close identified gaps.