Virginia Beach school leaders outline $10.8 million shortfall, offer pay and bonus options

Chair Kathleen Brown opened an administration workshop at 4 p.m. March 25 to review the division’s ongoing budget work amid an unresolved state budget.

Crystal Pate, chief financial officer for the Virginia Beach School Division, told the school board the division is working to address a $10,800,000 shortfall identified in the superintendent’s estimate of needs. Pate said staff divided proposed reductions into two phases: Part 1, measures with “less impact on the division,” and Part 2, measures that would have “more of an impact.”

The overview: why it matters

Pate said Part 1 includes eliminating 22 positions with a net savings of just over $2,200,000, reducing professional leave and travel budgets by 10% (about $174,000), and cutting roughly $1,500,000 through efficiencies in school division services. She added that “no staff will lose their job as these positions include those that were vacant or those where the employee met the requirements to fill another similar position.” Pate also said central-office reductions last year totaled $4,700,000 and that across the two years central-office savings now approach $10,600,000.

Part 2 would eliminate an additional 34 central-office positions, producing about $2,400,000 in savings, and includes more than $2,300,000 in additional line-item reductions. Pate cautioned that some reductions, while being concentrated outside classrooms, will still affect school operations and building maintenance.

State funding changes and board options

Pate summarized Governor Glenn Youngkin’s response to General Assembly budget amendments, saying the governor’s changes would add about $166,000,000 compared with his December proposal, including funds to raise the cap on instructional/noninstructional support positions, enhanced special education funding and a state-funded $1,000 bonus for SOQ-funded instructional support personnel paid by June with no local match required.

To guide the board if additional state revenue arrives, Pate presented three allocation options. The first would use an initial $4,100,000 of new state funds to raise pay on the instructional salary scale by 4.5% (affecting both instructional and unified scales at roughly 4%–4.5%) and then use up to $4,800,000 to restore some Part 2 cuts. The second option would instead set the instructional-scale raise at 5%, at an estimated cost of $6,200,000. The third option would let the board direct administration on priorities if revenues change.

Bonus options and eligibility questions

Pate noted the $1,000 bonus as drafted by the state would apply only to positions funded through the Standards of Quality (SOQ), which she said represents about 6,116.42 SOQ-funded positions in the division and 1,704.75 SOQ-funded support positions by one breakdown she displayed. She also identified a significant number of authorized positions above SOQ funding: “we have 3,264.7 positions authorized over and above those 6,000,” she said, meaning many employees would be excluded under the SOQ-only bonus approach.

To address that concern, the administration offered a second distribution option that would divide the available state bonus funding evenly across all eligible full-time equivalents, yielding approximately $650 per employee. Pate said the board would need to direct payroll by April 30 for a June disbursement and requested the board submit any remaining questions to Dr. Robertson, Ms. Woodhouse and all board members by March 31.

Board questions and context

Board members asked for further detail on categories cited in the cuts. Board member David Culpepper asked Pate to reread counts for SOQ-funded categories; Pate replied with the figures she had on the slide. Board member Ms. Rogers asked about TEA line-item reductions and whether the division tracks average TEA spending; Pate said she would provide that information. A board member also asked roughly how much PAYGO the division currently has; Pate said she would confirm the cash balance with the city.

Timing and next steps

Pate said the General Assembly reconvenes April 2 and division staff plan to update the board on April 8, though she cautioned there may be no change if the state budget remains unresolved. The division is scheduled to brief city council on the superintendent’s estimate of needs and the six-year capital improvement program on April 1. The board was asked to provide direction on bonus distribution and any preferences on raises by April 30.

Ending

The presentation closed with the board taking no formal votes on budget actions during the workshop; staff will return with follow-ups and requested data at future meetings.