Matthews County approves FY2026 budget amendment despite public concern over school costs

The Matthews County Board of Supervisors approved Budget Amendment No. 1 for fiscal year 2026 on Dec. 20, increasing the county’s adopted FY2026 budget from $36,356,366 to $37,490,623 — an increase of $1,134,257, or about 3 percent. The amendment passed on a roll-call vote: Walls — Nay; Phillips — Aye; Bowen — Aye; Jones — Nay; Doss — Aye.

County Administrator Ramona Wilson opened the public hearing and summarized the amendment’s revenue and expenditure changes, which include higher motor vehicle licensing fee estimates (from $300,000 to $324,000), a reduced investment income projection ($248,008.22, down from $300,000), and a mix of grant and fund-balance draws to cover capital and operating needs. Wilson said some changes reflect items that were not fully captured in the original adoption (a schools transfer correction of about $148,400 and a pulled-back SRO appropriation of about $89,047) and that capital projects will draw on SNAP and fund-balance sources. She explained that $322,533 was needed from fund balance to cover operating costs that could not be charged to capital accounts.

The budget material also shows a larger fund-balance picture: the general fund began the year at roughly $8.7 million and increased by about $3 million to approximately $11.8 million. Wilson told the board the county’s tax-collection performance remained strong, with a current-levy collection rate of 97.37 percent and delinquent collections bringing the total close to 100 percent.

Residents at the hearing voiced strong views. Sharon Fry called the proposed amendment “ludicrous,” warning that the county’s per‑student spending of about $22,000 (a figure raised repeatedly during public comment) and potential tax increases would strain residents on fixed incomes. Judy Roe, chair of the Broadband Advisory Board, urged recognition of new local revenue from tower leases, noting a $4,800 payment from Verizon and anticipated recurring income. Marie Flowers, a recent county resident, urged continued investment in schools.

Board members debated principles behind the amendment, including whether to budget full-year costs for positions that may not be filled immediately. Several members said grant-funded items (such as SROs) are included at full value because the grant offsets expenditures; others advocated line‑item adjustments when positions remain vacant to avoid overstating available capacity. Discussion also touched on the state’s local composite index (LCI) and broader efforts to seek changes at the General Assembly to shift school funding formulas.

Chair remarks and members’ statements emphasized public safety and core services as drivers of budget increases: board members noted higher workers’ compensation costs tied to claim experience and rising public-safety expenses. After discussion, the motion to approve the amendment was made, seconded and approved by roll call.

The board’s next fiscal steps include carrying the approved amendment into county accounting and monitoring grant deadlines and project timing tied to the amendment’s revenue assumptions. The county administrator said final audit and financial reports will be available in January.