Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Compensation Cip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews FY 2025–26 compensation options and six‑year CIP; Princess Anne High School funding pushed outside plan
Summary
At the March 4 special meeting the Virginia Beach City Public Schools budget team presented multiple pay‑scale scenarios and a revised six‑year capital plan; staff said an $8 million employer health contribution is included in the superintendent’s estimate and that reduced public‑facility borrowing has pushed Princess Anne High School outside the six‑year CIP window.
Crystal Pate, the division’s chief financial officer, presented the operating‑budget portion of the superintendent’s estimate of needs (SEON) and compensation scenarios at the March 4 special meeting. Dr. John B. Robertson, the superintendent, and Mr. Freeman (CIP lead) also briefed the board on capital priorities and a city request to reduce public‑facility revenue bonds.
Pate walked members through multiple compensation packages modeled for instructional and unified pay scales. Staff presented combinations labeled in briefing materials as Options A, B and C (different entry increases and step increments) and provided estimated total costs and resulting budget gaps under each combination:
- One combination (Option A for instructional and Option A for unified) would average a 6.41% increase for instructional staff and an 8.1% average increase for unified staff at a combined cost of about $47,300,000; after the employer health‑insurance increase already included in the SEON ($8,000,000) and a vacancy allocation of $11,700,000, staff showed a projected deficit of roughly $21,400,000 under that scenario.
- A lower‑cost combination (Option B for both scales in staff materials) produced a combined cost of about $33,300,000 and a projected deficit of about $7,300,000 under the same baseline assumptions.
- The most modest combination in the packet (Option C for instructional and Option B for unified as presented) produced an aggregate cost of about $29,200,000 and a projected deficit of about $3,200,000.
Pate said the SEON includes an $8,000,000 employer contribution increase for health insurance and a planned allocation of $11,700,000 for unfilled position vacancy savings; Chief Financial Officer Pate and the superintendent said that vacancy‑savings allocation makes further reductions to discretionary balances challenging and that staff will prepare a list of what $11,700,000 in reductions would mean for services and positions.
Board members pushed for scenarios that prioritize starting pay and for clearer comparisons of take‑home effects after benefits. Several members said compensation is the board’s top priority; Ms. Rogers and other members pressed staff for detailed options that would avoid “pay‑to‑play” student fees. Pate said final compensation decisions will depend on any additional state funding and on city‑level coordination; the governor’s actions and the General Assembly’s final budget were scheduled in the coming weeks and could change the SEON.
On capital planning, the board heard that the city requested reduced public‑facility revenue borrowing in the submitted CIP. Staff said they submitted a revised CIP that levels public‑facility revenue bond borrowing across the six‑year period and, as a consequence, shifts Princess Anne High School out of the six‑year window. Mr. Freeman and consultant work with Davenport showed project cost growth driven by inflation and explained that in a flat‑funding scenario new‑construction funding declines and pushes projects beyond the six‑year horizon. Dr. Robertson noted the Princess Anne school project amount in current materials and said the project appears in the division’s internal planning at $176,000,000 and that the SEON currently shows roughly $196,000,000 when $20,000,000 already programmed in the CIP is included.
The board asked staff to prepare additional detail: an itemized list of proposed cuts that would achieve the $11.7 million vacancy savings target; further analysis of CIP phasing and non‑traditional options; and lifecycle and LEED‑related cost/benefit information for HVAC and building‑efficiency decisions (board members referenced policy 3‑67 on LEED considerations for new construction and major renovations). Mr. Freeman said staff will return with options and recommended next steps and that the city’s debt‑metric expectations require collaboration.
Votes at a glance: The board voted to adopt the meeting agenda at the start of the session. Dr. Green moved approval; Mr. Culpepper seconded. The clerk recorded a 10‑yes vote for adoption.
Ending: Staff said they will return at subsequent workshops (including a March 25 session) with amended budget options dependent on any state funding actions and with the requested lists of cuts, CIP alternatives and additional cost detail.
