Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Southampton County School Board voted 8-1 on Monday, March 10, to approve a fiscal year 2026 total requested budget for Southampton County Public Schools of $38,282,007.

“And of that amount, we have a need for $14,049,056 to come from the county,” SCPS Superintendent Dr. Gwendolyn P. Shannon said. “And that is an increase of $2,499,745.”

Current local revenue going to the school division is $11,549,311.

Board Member Natalie Dever King cast the lone dissenting vote on the FY26 budget.

SCPS Director of Finance Joy Carr provided a detailed breakdown of the categorical budget to be delivered to the county along with the proposed line-item budget. 

For each of the seven categories, she summarized what they include, and in all but one category, she highlighted a requested increase in funding for them. The increase requests ranged from $46,738 for technology staff and supplies to $526,497 for instruction staff and supplies.

For the 66000 category dealing with site improvement, she said, “We are actually requesting a decrease of $95,000 in the 66000 category for services that are now covered under the maintenance and custodial contract with HES.”

Prior to Carr’s presentation, Shannon outlined some of the key items in the budget.

“So some of our key items in our proposed budget request are a 3% increase for all employees,” she said. “Raising the beginning teacher salary to $48,200.”

Continuing, she said, “We requested additional positions — one special education teacher at Nottoway (Elementary School), one special education teacher at Riverdale (Elementary School), two special education teachers at Southampton High School, one kindergarten paraprofessional at Nottoway, one kindergarten paraprofessional at Riverdale, one elementary paraprofessional at Fresh Start, and seven float pool staff to be used divisionwide as substitutes.”

She noted that in terms of instructional needs, SCPS is requesting a $106,314 increase for special education regional tuition and a $263,515 increase for occupational therapy/physical therapy and speech services.

She said SCPS is requesting a $30,000 increase for legal services.

Then, she indicated that for operational needs, SCPS is requesting a $5,200 increase to pay for insurance on vehicles; a $31,250 increase to pay for diesel and gasoline expenses; a $44,705 increase to pay for electrical services; a $10,850 increase to pay for heating services; a $1,500 increase to pay for water and sewer services; and a $7,575 increase to pay for property and liability insurance.

“So the total requested local and state operating budget for the ’25-’26 fiscal year is $38,282,007,” she said. “And of that amount, we have a need for $14,049,056 to come from the county. And that is an increase of $2,499,745.”

Carr also highlighted the $38.3 million budget amount, and she said, “Along with that, our state funding is projected at $24,128,651. This is based on an average daily membership of 2,114.8. We are using the General Assembly’s approved budget for our revenue projections at this time as we await final approval from the governor.

“You also see the non-resident tuition and federal funds for adult education are estimated at $104,300,” she added.

Before opening up the floor to questions from board members, she said, “Also included in this budget are budgets for our other state programs and federal programs and also the food service program. The grand total including all programs is proposed at $42,440,273.”

Board Member Dr. Jennifer Tindle said, “When you were going over the sections, and I may have missed it, the 62000 (category) — is that where the increase for the school psychologist’s salary and the assistant superintendent are?”

Carr indicated that this was correct.

Board Member Brandon Rodgers noted how the school division’s FY26 budget represented a 3.55% increase compared to its FY25 budget, “which is pretty amazing given the fact that we’ve seen like 11%-plus inflation over the last several years,” he said.

“Of note, adding a special education teacher is a necessity, and (I) just want to continue to drive that point home when we’re talking about budget increases that we are probably below where we need to be on staffing for special education teachers, so those are not a want — they are an absolute need, and I want to make sure we have that point really clearly articulated,” he continued.

“And (I) also wanted to just bring up the fact that while the increase request for the local funding is going to be about $2 million-plus, some of that’s related to a drop in state and federal funds that are balancing our budget,” he added. “So these are a lot of nuances that as ARPA or COVID dollars dried up, it’s really impacted what has happened in the state as well as what has happened at local school districts with funding.”

Board Vice Chair Denise Bunn echoed and expanded on some of Rodgers’ comments.

“A lot of what you see on the increases as well are things that we don’t have control over, of course,” she said, highlighting increases in health insurance, regional tuition, psychology, fuel and fleet insurance.

She later said, “That’s what it takes just to open the buildings and run the school each day. So we absorb all of those costs, and then we’re in the situation that we still have to make sure that our children have what they need to be educated, and we still have to make sure that our staff have raises to maintain some semblance of competitiveness.”

Board Member Christopher Smith Sr., who worked heavily on the budget with Bunn, said that “one of the other things that you don’t see in this budget is new initiatives.” 

He said, “Being as prudent as we were in this process, we didn’t see any way with what we need, what the building principals were telling us that they needed in the way of special education teachers, we still didn’t have any funds to have any kind of new initiatives for our students. That’s what we are lacking. We really need new initiatives.”

King made a Tuesday, March 11, post on Facebook from her “Natalie Dever King 4 School Board” account, sharing why she voted against approval of the school division’s proposed budget.

“I want to start by emphasizing that my vote last night was not a reflection of a lack of support for our schools, our educators or our students,” she stated. “I fully recognize the importance of ensuring adequate funding for our school division to provide high-quality education. However, after reviewing the proposed operating budget for FY 2025-26, I have significant concerns about the level of detail and data provided in this proposal.

“As board members, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and to ensure that the budget we send to the Board of Supervisors is both transparent and justifiable,” she continued. “At this time, I do not believe we have been given enough supporting data to make an informed decision. Specifically, I would like to see more clarity on spending breakdowns, projected student enrollment, justification for increases or decreases in specific line items, and the impact of this budget on instructional programs, staffing and facilities. Without this level of detail, I do not feel comfortable approving a budget that lacks sufficient explanation of how funds will be allocated and how they align with our district’s strategic priorities.”