By Matt de Simone
The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors will hold public hearings May 13 on the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget and tax rates, following a lengthy and at times contentious budget discussion at last week’s regular meeting that concluded with multiple split votes.
The hearings are scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Greenfield Administration Center in Daleville and are intended solely for public input. No action will be taken that evening.
According to the county’s official advertisement, the proposed budget totals $159,082,778 in both revenues and expenditures. The general fund accounts for $95,785,752 in revenues, while the school fund totals $51,403,441, with additional contributions from an economic development agreement and the projected use of health fund reserves.
On the expenditure side, the general fund is set at $70,604,869, and the school fund at $88,450,821.
Proposed tax rates remain unchanged, including $0.70 per $100 of assessed value for real estate and $2.71 for personal motor vehicles.
The advertised figures follow the April 28 meeting in which supervisors debated school funding, potential revenue adjustments and whether to restore previously removed budget items.
After hearing an overview from County Financial Director Katie Davis, Chairman Mac Scothorn invited discussion from members involved in the budget process. Blue Ridge Supervisor Walter Michael described a detailed review conducted with department heads that identified cost savings and operational changes, while Amsterdam Supervisor Tim Snyder emphasized the need to address long-term school facility and safety needs.
Snyder introduced a motion to fund Botetourt County Public Schools at $2,812,616 above level funding from the prior fiscal year. The motion, seconded by Supervisor Brandon Nicely, passed by a 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Linda Rottman and Michael opposing.
Rottman voiced concerns throughout the discussion about what she described as a lack of comparable financial scrutiny by the school division. She pointed to healthcare costs, prior-year surpluses and ongoing maintenance concerns, arguing she could not support funding beyond level amounts without greater accountability.
“We have an obligation to the taxpayers … to be fiscally responsible,” she remarked during the meeting.
Michael, who also voted against the increase, acknowledged prior budget changes he had supported but questioned whether additional funding requests had been sufficiently examined.
The board later considered a separate motion, introduced by Rottman and seconded by Nicely, to designate $494,156 in fiscal year 2026 year-end savings for identified one-time needs in FY27. That motion passed 4-0, with Michael abstaining.
Debate intensified as supervisors revisited a list of items proposed for addition to the advertised budget. Rottman objected to reintroducing items that had been removed during earlier deliberations, expressing frustration with the process.
“I’m appalled… this is what people are upset about,” she exclaimed as discussion grew heated.
Michael also questioned the approach, noting the board had spent weeks assembling what he believed was a balanced budget and expressing concern about reversing prior decisions.
Scothorn defended the revisions as part of establishing an advertised budget, pointing to potential revenue growth and ongoing needs across county departments.
A final motion by Scothorn, seconded by Nicely, to approve the revised budget for advertisement passed 3-2, with Rottman and Michael again voting against it.
The May 13 hearings will include two components: one addressing the proposed school and general county budgets and another focused on tax levies. Residents will have an opportunity to provide input before the board takes final action at a later meeting.
