Joint Meeting - Durham Public Schools and Durham County Commission - May 12, 2026: Durham Pre-K Access and School Budget Tradeoffs
The Durham County Board of Commissioners reviews how Durham pre-K manages limited seats, income-based enrollment, and barriers like transportation and wraparound care while Durham Public Schools detail classroom capacity, salary pressures, and charter growth. Budget leaders and school officials explain why repeated property tax increases, rising school funding, and slowing revenues are forcing tougher choices on services, salaries, and capital needs. 49mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Tuesday, May 12th, 2026
9686.498005
Board of County Commissioners on 2026-05-12 9:00 AM - Joint BOCC/BOE Meeting
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
Dr. Deborah Pittman reported that Durham Public Schools dedicated 81 pre-K classrooms across 30 elementary schools and a pre-K center, outlining how these were divided among general education, specialized EC programs, and Montessori classrooms, including one general pre-K classroom held in reserve with funding protected.
-
-
A speaker outlined how Durham Public Schools planned to boost pre-K enrollment by advertising year-round, coordinating with partners on the universal application, expanding wraparound care options, proactively supporting families after seat acceptance, and closely monitoring under-enrolled sites and overall enrollment trends.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lane summarized that Durham Public Schools were recommended to receive $235.4 million in direct funding plus substantial indirect support, noted that declining enrollment led to a 6.6% increase in per-pupil funding to nearly $6,000, highlighted a $101 million annual increase in school and charter funding over nine years, and emphasized ongoing collaboration on DPS capital needs amid concerns about the sustainability of such growth without frequent tax rate increases.
-
-
-
Keith Lane reviewed employee benefit costs and a proposed wellness funding increase aimed at controlling health insurance expenses, and also outlined recommended fee changes for the county’s enterprise funds, including a 10% wastewater treatment fee hike while keeping stormwater and erosion control fees flat.
-
-
-
Manager Hager explained that the budget was built to avoid further property tax increases by realigning existing funds to address employee inflation adjustments, strategically holding vacancies to absorb a 2% local-funded cut without layoffs, and adapting to new policy-driven revenue constraints while recognizing recent tax hikes for residents.
-
Board of Education Member Joy Harrell Goff questioned why population growth was not generating enough property tax revenue, and Budget Director Keith Lane explained that while property valuations had risen and funded services without tax rate increases, the cost of supporting DPS, EMS, and other needs had grown faster than both population and property value.
-
Budget Director Lane explained how commercial and residential properties, including apartment buildings, contributed to rising property valuations and emphasized that despite this growth, the additional revenue still was not enough to cover the costs of serving new residents without tax rate increases.
-
Board of Education Member Harrell Goff questioned why growing population and sales tax were not keeping up with service costs, and Budget Director Lane explained that many major household expenses were exempt from sales tax, so rising spending on essentials left less taxable retail spending and slowed sales tax growth.
-
Board of Education Member Harrell Goff voiced concern that residents were not seeing benefits from growth, and Manager Hager responded by explaining that while real property values had risen about 68%, appeals—particularly on under‑occupied commercial properties—reduced the initially projected tax base even as natural growth continued.
-
Manager Hager and Budget Director Lane compared rising expenses outpacing revenue to a household budget and explained that unprecedented increases in real estate values reflected the hot market, while some commercial buyers overpaid for buildings whose income and vacancies later justified lower assessed values.
-
-
Commissioner Wendy Jacobs emphasized the need to expand EMS given a 14‑minute average response time, pressed Durham Public Schools to identify internal cuts rather than relying solely on additional county funding for classified staff salary increases, and warned that simultaneously raising wages and property taxes was unsustainable since city, county, and schools all drew from the same taxpayer base.
-
-
Board of Education Chair Umstead reflected residents’ concern about paying higher taxes without seeing direct benefits, clarified that county school allocations also passed through to charter students, and warned that aging facilities, rising costs, and salary needs created a fiscal ‘pressure cooker’ that required stronger state and federal advocacy for public education funding.
-
DPS Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis acknowledged rising fixed costs and the need to invest in staff, explained that Durham Public Schools had already cut about $2 million at central office while tightening course offerings and school staffing, and emphasized that the student experience remained the priority even as additional internal cuts and expansion decisions were made through extensive community and staff engagement in the budget process.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor expressed appreciation that the county budget covered continuation costs and explained how anticipated state raises of about 3% for classified staff and 8% on average for certified staff, combined with a locally assumed 5% increase and a workforce that was roughly 80% classified and 20% certified in the local budget, positioned Durham to request sufficient continuation funding to implement the new salary schedules.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor explained that expansion requests centered on improving classified employee compensation, noted strong stakeholder feedback on this priority, and outlined plans to work with Dr. Lewis and the board over upcoming meetings to scrutinize spending, identify potential internal cuts, and use the solid continuation funding base to create room for additional classified pay increases.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor discussed exploring internal budget adjustments to add a supplement for bus monitors and safety assistants similar to bus drivers and to raise occupational and physical therapist compensation to align with other urban districts while balancing district spending priorities.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor explained that the district was conservatively budgeting for charter school enrollment to rise from 23% to 26% with two new charter schools opening, and described plans to finalize a marketing contract modeled on other large systems’ successes to help retain students and bring families back to Durham Public Schools.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor noted that capital outlay funding did not have to be shared with charter schools, highlighted the county manager’s continued recommendation of $5 million per year for this support, and explained plans to evaluate resources, prioritize greatest needs, and work with colleagues to advance key expansion items before the final budget adoption.
-
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor explained that the district was adopting a more zero‑based approach by redirecting swept funds toward expansion items and making about $13 million in staffing reductions to adjust for declining state funding, rising charter obligations, and enrollment-driven changes.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor explained that strictly following staffing allotment formulas allowed the district to absorb a $13 million reduction tied to lower state funding and higher charter obligations, clarified with Board of Education Chair Umstead that those dollars would not sit in a DPS reserve, and noted that $3–4 million in swept funds could be redirected from departmental budgets to priority expansion items.
-
DPS Chief Financial Officer Teetor described reviewing all capital outlay funding sources, including state lottery and repair dollars, and outlined plans to shift some brick‑and‑mortar costs to lottery funds to free other capital dollars for technology while avoiding the use of bond funds for tech purchases.
-
-
More from this government
Nearby governments