School superintendent seeks $33.1 million FY27 budget; supervisors press on bus buys, bonuses and substitute pay

Dr. Cynthia Reasoner, superintendent of Buckingham County Public Schools, on Wednesday presented the school division’s proposed FY27 operating budget of $33,106,985 and asked the Board of Supervisors to provide an additional $383,717 in minimum local effort to meet state funding requirements tied to a revised Local Composite Index.

Reasoner told the joint work session the division based the FY27 proposal on a conservative Average Daily Membership (ADM) of 1,650 after enrollment declined from the FY26 budget assumption of 1,725. She listed accomplishments — multiple schools designated “on track” or “distinguished” by the Virginia Department of Education — and described steps the division took this year to close a state‑revenue shortfall without layoffs, including not filling six teacher vacancies and moving some locally funded positions to federal grants.

The nut of the request, Reasoner said, is that Buckingham’s LCI rose to 0.3569 in December 2025, which increases the locality’s required local match. “If that was not the case, the County would … have to appropriate over $1 million to the schools in one fiscal year,” she said, summarizing state CALC tool scenarios for governor, House and Senate budget versions and noting the division built its proposal on the governor’s, most conservative, figures.

The proposal includes a 4 percent across‑the‑board raise plus step increases for full‑time employees, personnel additions focused on student social‑emotional support and SOQ positions (a full‑time gifted teacher, an instructional technology resource teacher, reading specialists and additional counselor and special‑education capacity), and a modest start‑up for a high‑school marching band. Reasoner said total proposed new personnel and non‑personnel additions net to approximately $757,986 after proposed reductions and offsets.

The presentation also covered capital timing: Reasoner said the division postponed bulk bus purchases last fall while monitoring ADM, has one new bus with air conditioning in the procurement pipeline from vendor King Moore and has a letter of intent to purchase a second bus after April 15 when March 31 ADM is clearer. “We internally worked the problem … and we did not request any financial assistance from the Board of Supervisors last fall,” she said.

Board members pressed the School Board and superintendent on several operational choices during an extended question-and-answer period. Chairman Joe N. Chambers said delaying bus purchases likely cost taxpayers about $19,000 in price increases; he also asked why some substitute bus drivers allegedly did not receive an approved $100‑a‑day pay level retroactively. “We appropriate the money for y’all to give them. Y’all didn’t give it to him, so you need to give it to them now,” Chambers said.

Reasoner and Wendy Oliver, school board clerk, said the approved substitute pay rate was $100 a day and that the division would audit payroll to confirm effective dates and retroactive payments. Oliver said the rate was in the approved salary scale and that the division would “go back through our payroll and make sure everyone got it and we will report back to you all.”

The board also debated the handling of a state retention/ recruitment bonus that some divisions conditioned on return‑of‑service agreements. Chambers said several employees were required to repay state‑provided funds when they left; Reasoner explained that some school divisions asked for repayment when employees broke signed contracts tied to the retention money and that Buckingham’s action reflected language in prior state legislation.

Supervisors pressed for more detail and for transparency on how administrative and frontline pay relate to recruit/retention goals. Supervisor L. Cameron Gilliam and others urged the School Board to provide precise dates and payroll records so the board can determine whether reimbursements or retroactive payments are warranted.

The session ended with the School Board moving into an executive closed session to discuss specific employees. The supervisors later asked the County Administrator and the School Board to reconcile payroll records and report back before final budget adoption.

The next procedural step is the county’s public advertisement and hearings on its FY27 budget; the supervisors voted later Wednesday to advertise a 48¢ per‑$100 real‑estate rate for public notice (see companion article on the county budget).