Board hears budget scenarios tied to governor's May 2 decision, discusses CIP progress and warehouse purchase

Superintendent Dr. Smith and finance staff outlined four high-level revenue scenarios and the capital-improvement plan (CIP), then described one-time funding options and the board’s options if state or county revenues are lower than projected.

Staff said the school-board-approved budget assumed a $5,000,000 county transfer and that the county advertised a 1 percentage-point meals-tax increase (from 5% to 6%) that the county estimates would provide an additional $3,100,000 annually if approved; together those two items would raise local support by about $8.1 million. Staff presented two possible state outcomes: the general assembly’s budget (which was included in the board’s approved budget and would raise state aid substantially) or a veto by the governor that would revert divisions to the second year of the existing biennium budget. If the governor signs the general assembly budget, staff said the net change would reduce the board’s funding gap; if he vetoes and the biennium budget holds, the division faces a larger gap.

Staff quantified the ranges: under a worst-case combination (biennium budget and no meals-tax increase) staff estimated an adjusted funding gap of about $31,000,000; with meals tax but no new state funds the gap would be smaller (about $27,900,000). If the general-assembly budget stands but the meals tax does not pass the board’s adjusted gap was presented as approximately $18,300,000; the “best case” — general-assembly budget plus the meals-tax increase — would reduce the board’s adjusted funding gap to about $15,200,000 and trim the remaining gap to roughly $700,000 after limiting some compensation adjustments.

Staff warned that closing the gaps could require sizable programmatic reductions or operational changes: expanding class sizes, reducing tuition caps, scaling back some program offerings (including extracurriculars and athletics), revisiting contracts with non‑appropriation clauses and trimming custodial/cleaning standards. They said maintaining compensation scale integrity would require an average pay increase near 2.5%; moving to 2.75% or higher would need additional cuts. Board members repeatedly emphasized the potential direct impact on students if programs, staffing or athletic offerings are cut.

Capital projects and procurement also drew detailed discussion. Staff said the CIP alignment with the county improved this cycle: Drew Middle School rebuild, High School 6 continuation and movement on Hartwood Elementary were all in the county plan. The board was told recurring R&R (3R) funding has been increased to about $17,000,000 (a mix of cash and debt financing) compared with prior years, which staff said helps address an extensive backlog of maintenance projects.

The board also discussed a proposed purchase of a warehouse the staff called the “Blackjack Road property.” Staff said the division currently leases a storage/warehousing site (about $125,000 a year in recent years) and that purchasing the Blackjack Road property for approximately $2,900,000 (requested as a county appropriation) would reduce long-term costs and avoid future lease inflation. Staff reported a facility condition assessment that showed no imminent roof replacement and recommended the purchase; they said the county’s Board of Supervisors would consider the appropriation at an upcoming meeting (staff planned to brief supervisors at a work session and seek purchase approval on May 6).

On potential FY25 one-time bonuses, staff said the general assembly included a $1,000 bonus for SOQ‑funded positions with no local match. Because divisions may extend that amount to all employees, Stafford staff prepared a distribution model using the available $3,400,000: approximately $700 for full‑time contracted staff and $350 for part‑time contracted staff (pre‑tax), if the governor signs the budget and the board and county appropriate the funds. Staff said distribution timing and a contract/contractor cutoff date would be part of any final recommendation.

Timeline and next steps: staff asked the board to plan for expedited work sessions after the governor’s May 2 deadline and proposed bringing specific appropriation requests (Blackjack purchase, use of FY24 carryover for technology items such as Chromebooks) to the board on May 13 so contracts and distributions can be issued quickly. Staff recommended close monthly revenue monitoring and said they would return with recommended prioritized cuts if revenues fall short.

No formal budget-appropriation vote occurred at this meeting; board members asked staff for clearer cost-to-cut “menus,” one-time-versus-recurring distinctions and more detail on how proposed purchases and one-time allocations affect the projected funding gap.