Chesterfield schools project $1.66 million shortfall; CFO outlines staffing, transportation and program requests

Kevin Caskey, chief financial officer for Chesterfield County Public Schools, told the board at a work session April 28 that the district’s preliminary budget projects a $1,666,000 shortfall and outlined a slate of personnel and program funding requests that would rely on the general fund.

Why it matters: The shortfall, if not closed with new revenue or spending cuts, would reduce the district’s fund balance and requires annual decisions about positions currently funded by expiring federal ESSER grants. Board members debated revenue options including reassessment gains and a possible millage increase, but no formal vote was taken.

Caskey said state-mandated changes are the largest drivers on the cost side. Based on current legislative information, the state minimum teacher salary schedule would increase by $1,500 across cells; teachers would also receive the annual step increase. Health-insurance costs were revised in the Senate to a 4.6% increase on the employer side (removing an earlier employee-premium increase), and bus-driver minimum schedules would increase by 2%. Caskey estimated the employer-side health increase alone would add roughly $475,000 to the general fund, and he put the combined cost of the teacher step and minimum increases at about $1,350,000.

Local-option pay decisions in the draft include a 1% cost-of-living adjustment and a step increase for non-teaching staff (administrators excluded), which Caskey estimated would cost roughly $450,000.

On transportation, Caskey proposed a $275,000 line item to place monitors on regular bus routes; currently monitors are on special-education routes only. He said the funding would cover monitors for an estimated 80 to 90 regular routes but that staff would need to develop a selection and scheduling process if the board approves the expenditure. The monitors would be paid based on route time (the same “tach time” system used for drivers); Caskey estimated monitor wages would likely range in the mid-teens to low-20s per hour.

Asked whether the monitors could be funded from capital or the county’s penny sales tax for safety, Caskey said those revenue sources are restricted to capital improvements and fixed assets and cannot be used to pay salaries.

Caskey also proposed targeted program and staffing investments: $25,000 added to the fine-arts budget for travel, equipment and supplies (to be distributed districtwide across 16 schools), one additional school psychologist to relieve workloads (five are currently on staff), and three behavioral specialists to provide training and direct support in elementary schools. He said the behavioral specialists’ primary responsibility would be staff training to manage increasing behavioral needs.

The presentation addressed a recurring budget issue: a set of positions that were initially funded with federal ESSER dollars and kept on staff after the grant expired. Caskey said roughly $955,000 in positions previously supported by ESSER remain in place but are not included in the base general-fund budget; keeping those positions next year would require the board to reauthorize using vacancy savings or identify other funding each year.

On the revenue side, Caskey presented current projections that combine state and county sources: $1,536,000 from a state lump-sum increase tied to “proviso 1.3” (house figures cited), $462,000 in additional hold-harmless revenue under Act 388 (owner-occupied exemption), and $750,000 tied to county reassessment. He showed a scenario in which a 3-mill county millage would raise about $294,000. Those elements together produced a projected revenue figure of $77,711,295 against projected expenditures of $79,377,776.

Caskey said the district’s audited general fund balance was $12,000,009.06 as of June 30, 2024; projected to be about $10,000,003.19 at the end of the current fiscal year and, if the $1.666 million gap is applied, approximately $8,600,000 at the end of the following fiscal year. He noted that if certain ESSER-related amounts were applied differently the end-of-year balance could be closer to $7,500,000.

Board members discussed implications for the district’s fund-balance policy and credit rating and whether a millage increase should be considered. Several board members said they were not inclined to pursue a millage increase this year; others argued it was appropriate to discuss as an option. No policy decision or formal vote on a millage or on the budget itself occurred at the work session.

Board members asked staff to provide follow-up information, including a list of positions paid from the former ESSER funding and examples showing how a millage change would affect a typical homeowner’s tax bill. Caskey said he would provide those details to the board.

The board was reminded that the next regular meeting is scheduled for May 12 (executive session at 5 p.m., open session at 5:30 p.m.). A motion to approve the work-session agenda was passed by unanimous consent at the start of the meeting; a motion to adjourn was made and seconded at the end of the session.

No formal budget approvals were taken during the April 28 work session.