Goochland schools weigh two budget scenarios; board directs superintendent to pursue higher‑funding option

Dr. Kamardi, superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools, told the school board at a budget workshop that the division faces two clear budget paths: a “flat” budget with no additional county funding or a higher‑funding scenario that would include a 3% cost‑of‑living increase for employees and several staffing and program priorities. "This will be a budget with no additional county funding, also known as a flat budget," Dr. Kamardi said while outlining the lower‑funding option.

The superintendent said the higher‑funding scenario — which relies on increased county contribution and would add roughly $1.4 million in local support based on information the division received from the county — would permit a 3% COLA, move some capital projects from the capital improvement plan into the operating budget, and allow targeted hires including interventionists and program coordinators. "A 3% cost of living increase is the only way to ensure the sustainability of our exhaustive efforts last year this time to provide a market adjustment for our teachers," she said.

Why it matters: The board must finalize a recommended school budget that the county will consider for funding. The division’s choice affects teacher compensation, classroom support, career‑technical offerings, transportation and an existing technology encumbrance the superintendent said the division must still absorb.

What the two scenarios entail

Under the “flat” scenario (no additional county funding), Dr. Kamardi said the division would not provide a 3% COLA for employees, could not move capital projects into operations, would remove one school bus from the operating budget and would have no flexibility for unanticipated needs. She said expiring ARPA‑related dollars and rising costs mean the same nominal funding level produces a deficit: "We are operating in a flat funding scenario, dollars 510,200 at a deficit," she said.

Under the higher‑funding scenario — the superintendent called it the “better of times” — the county contribution would rise by nearly $1.4 million and the overall budget would increase about 4.7% year over year on the ledger the superintendent presented. That scenario would, among other items, fund a 3% COLA (estimated at about $885,000), restore previously encumbered technology spending the division procured to secure a prior market adjustment, and create room for prioritized positions.

Priorities, costs and tradeoffs

Dr. Kamardi presented a prioritized list of proposed uses for additional funds and the division's internal cost‑saving measures. Key figures and proposals the superintendent gave to the board include:

- Population change: the superintendent cited U.S. Census figures showing Goochland County grew from 24,727 residents in 2020 to 27,486 (an increase of 2,759; ~11.2%). - ARPA and other one‑time reductions: roughly $262,260 of prior indirect/federal support is no longer available; other losses cited totaled roughly $307,930. - Encumbrances: $270,000 in technology contracts were procured in an earlier fiscal year to enable a market adjustment and would need to be absorbed. - Personnel and program amounts called out by the superintendent: a kindergarten teacher and ESOL increase previously covered by internal solutions ($88,120), a 0.5 FTE clerk prorated at $13,500, converting a part‑time ESOL position to full time (~$35,000), increasing a quarter FTE EMT teacher to a half FTE (~$9,100), and an internal package of creative adjustments totaling ~$76,100. - Assistant principal: the superintendent said an internal reassignment to create an assistant principal position at Goochland Elementary could cost the division about $32,000 after internal savings (she contrasted that with an earlier estimate of $108,000). - “Best of times” package: the superintendent said fully funding the highest priorities would require an additional $625,897 (an added 2.1%), bringing the potential year‑over‑year increase to 6.8%.

Dr. Kamardi described three proposed interventionist positions (reading/math interventionists) as a top priority because of the number of students they would touch across schools and framed work‑based learning coordination, robotics assistance and middle‑school coach stipend reform as other targeted needs.

Board questions and concerns

Board members asked for clarifications on prioritization and tradeoffs. One board member asked whether the slide showing proposed items listed them in priority order; Dr. Kamardi said yes and explained she would move middle‑school coach stipends and a robotics assistant ahead of the work‑based learning coordinator if forced to prioritize further.

Several board members raised concerns about adding permanent staff, noting positions can become ongoing obligations. One board member said she had reservations about creating an assistant principal before the school year is complete. Another asked whether hiring three interventionists was preferable to adding three classroom teachers to reduce class size; the superintendent replied that interventionists are targeted at students with demonstrated needs and could reach more children across multiple campuses. The board also discussed Title I and supplemental constraints for a Title I school.

Direction to staff

After discussion, multiple board members expressed support for the higher‑funding scenario. The superintendent stated: "Assuming the direction that I've received from 3 board members, I think that we're gonna work to bring a draft balanced budget exercise in option 2," and said she would present a draft balanced budget at the next workshop for the board to consider and to seek approval to advertise a public hearing.

Procedural items and next steps

The meeting began with the board approving the meeting agenda by voice vote and concluded with a motion to adjourn. The superintendent outlined the near‑term schedule: a draft balanced budget would be presented at the next workshop; the board aims to approve a recommended 2025‑26 school budget later in February and then present the recommended budget to the county board of supervisors in March for consideration. She also said the division will post the presentation to the public and will continue to monitor state and federal funding developments.

Ending

Board members did not take a formal roll‑call vote on the higher‑funding scenario at this meeting; instead, several members voiced support and the superintendent said she would draft a balanced budget based on that direction for the board's review next week. The board adjourned after confirming the schedule for the next budget workshop and related presentations.