Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prince George school board debates FY‑27 budget after health‑insurance and staffing cost spikes
Summary
The Prince George County School Board reviewed FY‑27 budget updates that include a proposed 3% staff raise, new positions and higher health‑insurance and special‑education costs. Board members split over asking the county for additional funds and agreed to postpone final adoption until updated state and insurance figures are available.
Chair Andrews opened the Feb. 19 special work session and asked Dr. Lyle and Ms. Smith to present updates to the proposed FY‑27 operating budget. Ms. Smith told the board the division is proposing a 3% salary increase for employees and several new positions, but she cautioned that two major unknowns — a prospective health‑insurance increase and a pending state CALC count tool update — could affect the figures.
"Initially, we were given a cost increase of 10%, which is roughly around $700,000, but then they came back with an even higher increase of 23.4%. So what you're seeing tonight still reflects the 10% because we are shopping that around," Ms. Smith said, explaining staff are soliciting alternative insurance quotes.
Ms. Smith summarized the largest drivers of the proposed budget: roughly $1.7 million for the 3% salary package; a $1.2 million increase to special‑education (SPED) professional services driven in part by a reclassification of positions from salary lines to contracted services; about $1.0 million for new positions; and increased operations and maintenance costs tied to utilities and supplies. She also said the division is budgeting about $250,000 to preserve before‑and‑after‑school tutoring previously funded by an outside source.
Board members repeatedly asked for more transparent line‑by‑line views of the budget. Several asked Ms. Smith to provide the same spreadsheet sorted by object code or employee ID so they could reconcile adopted salaries, vacancies and the effects of the 3% raise. "Maybe it would help you if I show you the actuals from last year on there," Ms. Smith said; board members said an Excel view that strips names but shows job IDs, vacancies and projected changes would aid review.
The board also pressed Ms. Smith about an unexpected administrative fee tied to international (EPI) teachers. Ms. Smith said last year the administrative fee billed for those teachers was roughly $817,000 versus a $93,000 budget line, and that with 51 teachers this year the division expects higher aggregate costs. "If you divide that by the number of teachers, it's roughly $74,000 per teacher," she said.
Members debated whether to ask the Board of Supervisors for a larger county transfer. Board member Rob Ealy said he would not support presenting a budget that asks the county for significantly more money than last year. "I am not doing it. I am not sending a budget across the street" that asks for what he characterized as an unsupportable increase, he said. Other members argued that if the state provides additional dollars the district could restore positions that had been cut in the interim.
Acknowledging the uncertainties, Dr. Lyle recommended the board delay final adoption until the state releases an updated CALC tool and until health‑insurance quotes are clearer. He proposed a budget work session on March 19 and a final adoption vote on March 26 to meet the county’s April 1 deadline. Several board members agreed to schedule March 16 (a public‑meeting evening at the high school) as an optional data review if updated numbers arrive earlier.
The board did not adopt the FY‑27 budget at the Feb. 19 meeting. Members directed staff to produce the requested line‑by‑line spreadsheets and to return with updated figures after the new CALC tool and final insurance costs are known.
