Screenshot courtesy of Botetourt Co.
By Matt de Simone
Following weeks of public debate, including a public hearing earlier this month that drew extensive comment from residents on both sides of the issue, the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors voted last Tuesday night to postpone approval of the county’s proposed fiscal year 2026-27 budget until after a June 11 meeting with the county auditor and school officials.
The decision came after another lengthy discussion among board members and residents during the board’s May 26 meeting.
Despite sharp disagreements over the proposed school budget, supervisors ultimately reached consensus to table the vote in what several members described as an effort to gather additional financial information before formally adopting the budget.
The proposed $159 million budget includes no tax increases and reflects an anticipated 8% increase in revenues and expenditures over the current fiscal year, according to county administration. The proposal also includes more than $35.1 million in direct local funding for Botetourt County Public Schools, part of a total recommended school budget of $88.5 million— a roughly 10% increase over the current year.
Board Chairman Mac Scothorn thanked the budget subcommittee and fellow supervisors for what he described as “countless hours” spent reviewing the budget and working through proposed adjustments.
“This is a complicated process at best,” Scothorn said during the meeting.
The debate centered largely on whether the county should immediately approve the proposed school funding increase or first seek additional clarification regarding school spending, reserves and expenditures.
Amsterdam District Supervisor Tim Snyder said he supported moving forward with the budget, citing conversations with the county auditor and what he viewed as the school system’s willingness to reduce its original request.
“The schools originally asked for roughly $14.5 million,” Snyder said. “The fact that they are willing to operate with only an additional $2.8 million, I think that stands out to me.”
Snyder also emphasized what he called the county’s obligation to support education.
“There were three founding principles of why I think I ran for this role: education, fire and life safety, and our sheriff’s department,” he said. “And I feel as though I am supporting all of those things.”
Buchanan District Supervisor Linda Rottman argued the board should wait until after the June 11 auditor meeting before voting on the budget.
“I think it’s the responsible thing to do,” Rottman said. “We need actual numbers. We need to know what it is that we’re approving.”
Rottman raised concerns about discrepancies between school budget requests, annual expenditure reports and reserve balances, saying she believed more review was needed before approving additional local funding.
The discussion led to procedural confusion after competing motions were introduced including one to table the budget vote and another to approve the budget immediately. Following guidance from county counsel and additional discussion, Scothorn changed his vote and joined the majority in supporting a motion to reconsider and table the matter until after the June 11 meeting.
Rottman thanked Scothorn for reconsidering his position, and the board ultimately voted unanimously to delay the budget vote.
County Finance Director Katie Davis clarified during the meeting that supervisors would still need to formally adopt a budget appropriation resolution later in June and noted that quarterly appropriations for schools could provide additional flexibility while state budget figures remain uncertain.
School Superintendent Dr. Janet Womack also addressed the board, explaining that the school division had already reduced portions of its original request, primarily in insurance, maintenance and staffing lines.
“If we change those numbers, it will have to be presented to our School Board for approval as well,” Womack said.
The county later issued a social media statement explaining the decision to postpone the vote. According to the statement, the June 11 meeting will include several supervisors, two School Board members, Superintendent Womack, finance staff and the county auditor “to further review and better understand the school system’s financial reports and budget information.”
The debate drew strong opinions from residents on both sides of the issue during the public comment period.
Several speakers urged the board to support school funding and criticized what they viewed as growing distrust of teachers and public education.
One Amsterdam District resident defended the schools and called for greater transparency from all sides.
“We must support our schools,” the woman told supervisors. “You cannot say that you support teachers… and then not support teachers now.”
She also pushed back against claims that school finances lacked oversight, telling the board that both the schools and county are independently audited each year.
Other residents voiced support for delaying the budget vote and conducting additional financial review before approving more funding.
A retired resident cited concerns about taxpayers on fixed incomes and questioned whether the school division should seek additional revenue sources before asking for more county funding.
“We need to demand more,” the resident said. “The School Board must find another way to live within their means.”
Several speakers referenced concerns about reserve balances, maintenance spending and prior funding allocated for repairs at Lord Botetourt High School.
Another resident called for an independent review of school finances before additional increases are approved.
“The issue is not whether the schools deserve support,” one woman said. “Strong schools are essential to every community. The issue is whether the public… has been provided with sufficiently transparent and verifiable financial reporting.”
Others criticized what they viewed as excessive county spending and urged supervisors to exercise greater fiscal restraint.
An educator told supervisors the county was facing a “leadership crisis” caused by long-term financial decisions and debt obligations. “We support the students. We support the schools,” he said. “But you’ve put us in a spot where we can’t support them financially.”
Under Virginia law, local governing bodies are required to approve a budget and set tax rates before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.
Section 15.2-2503 of the Code of Virginia states that local governments “shall approve the budget and fix a tax rate for the budget year no later than the date on which the fiscal year begins.”
County counsel told the supervisors during the meeting that while state law allows the board to delay adoption until later in June, school officials also face deadlines related to teacher contracts and appropriations.
Supervisors are expected to revisit the budget after the June 11 auditor meeting during a future special meeting in June.
