Council authorizes manager to pursue two options to close $1.9M Portsmouth schools gap; debate centers on vacancy accounting vs. one-time loan

Portsmouth City Council members asked the city manager to continue negotiations with Portsmouth Public Schools to close a roughly $1.9 million gap in the school system's budget, and the council signaled consensus to allow the manager to pursue two options: have the schools account for expected vacancies in their budget or provide a one-time draw from the city's general fund balance to be repaid from the schools' end-of-year surplus.

Why it matters: The choice affects whether the schools avoid program cuts or whether the city uses one-time reserves to temporarily cover recurring personnel costs. Council members emphasized the need to avoid program cuts while debating financial prudence and long-term budgetary implications.

Councilman Hugo led the discussion, offering two possible solutions he said could resolve the school board's $1.9 million request without cutting classroom programs: either the school system's CFO could build a vacancy assumption into its budget (Hugo framed this as acknowledging roughly 30 unfilled positions) or the city could "spot them the $1.9 million" from the general fund balance now and have the school repay that amount from its anticipated surplus when year-end books are closed.

Mayor Glover summarized the council's view bluntly during the debate: "The money's there," and urged collaboration to solve the schools' shortfall. At the same time, several council members warned of the risk in treating a recurring personnel cost as a one-time fix. Vice Mayor Moody said, "The fund balance is a 1 time pot of money. That's not something that's recurring that we..." and cautioned that funding long-term salary obligations from one-time reserves creates future budget pressure.

Other council members pressed the school system's fiscal practices: speakers noted repeated year-end surpluses in recent years and urged the schools to use vacancy assumptions and existing surplus procedures rather than rely on new recurring commitments from the city. Council members also discussed the school board's internal budgeting processes and liaison communications; Councilwoman Thomas and others said the vacancy figures reported by the Virginia Department of Education do not always reflect in-classroom staffing levels (for example, some positions filled by substitutes or less-tenured staff).

Outcome and next steps: By show of hands, council members indicated consensus to authorize City Manager Steven Carter to pursue both options with Portsmouth Public Schools and to report back to the council. Carter told members he would contact them by phone and email and expected to notify the council of any finalized agreement by about 2 p.m. the next day so any changes could be reflected before the formal budget vote.

Distinction between discussion and decision: Council members clarified the difference between discussing numbers and imposing budget instructions on the school board. Speakers repeatedly said the school board retains authority over its internal budget and programs; the manager's role is to negotiate options and return the results to council for any formal action.

Ending: The council's consensus advanced a short-term pathway for the schools to receive the funding they requested while highlighting continued debate over whether the schools should address the gap through vacancy assumptions or whether the city should provide a temporary loan from fund balance.