Richmond School Board asks superintendent to trim budget additions to $30 million amid revenue shortfall concerns

The Richmond School board on March 1 (date in transcript not specified) voted to direct the superintendent to revise the budget proposal so that proposed additions total $30,000,000, following more than two hours of discussion about the district’s fund balance, state and city revenue outlook, collective bargaining costs and capital needs.

Superintendent Mister Kambers told the board the state General Assembly’s approved budget “roughly are going to yield plus $10,000,000, which in essence closes the hole created by the fund balance, brings us back to even,” but said the city allocation that will determine the district’s actual new revenue remains uncertain. The board’s motion asks the superintendent to return a revised proposal incorporating the priorities expressed at the meeting and to present that version at the board’s March 3 meeting for consideration and March 4 for approval as scheduled in the board materials.

The discussion centered on three linked issues: a multi-year decline in the district’s fund balance that the superintendent traced to pandemic-era fluctuations, a late-breaking increase in state funding, and uncertainty about how much the City of Richmond will add when it proposes its FY budget. The superintendent said the district’s fund balance was about $11,000,000 three years ago and about $1,000,000 two years ago, creating what he described as a roughly $10,000,000 revenue “hole” the district must absorb when prior one-time funds are no longer available.

Board members pressed for specifics and trade-offs. Several asked the superintendent to prioritize which items in the proposed additions are “mission critical” (for example, covering the increased cost of employee health care and collective-bargaining increases, which the administration estimated at $16,500,000) and which investments could be reduced or deferred. Members also sought a prioritized capital improvement program (CIP) list because the CIP proposal contains roughly $16,000,000 in items, while the district historically receives about $2,500,000 annually for maintenance and capital work.

On CIP particulars, the superintendent walked the board through categories on the FY 26 memo: ADA projects (elevators), athletic/playground improvements, electrical and fire safety upgrades (replacement of obsolete alarm panels), HVAC requests, paving, plumbing, roofing and structural work. Board members flagged specific projects not currently listed (for example, HVAC attention for MLK Preschool) and asked staff to add them for review. The superintendent noted that facility assessments the district recently completed identified about $47,000,000 in maintenance needs but that available annual funding is far smaller, so staff will present a prioritized list of capital projects tied to what the city ultimately provides.

Board members proposed candidate reductions and trade-offs during discussion: trimming multilingual-teacher hires (board members suggested smaller hires in lieu of the 55 positions in the proposal), delaying or scaling some literacy and extended-day items while preserving core literacy investments, seeking partnerships and philanthropic support for specific items (for example, classroom libraries), reviewing contract terms (including the Special Olympics contract), and examining grant-funded positions for possible nonrecurrence or conversion. Several members urged the board to keep a full “needs” or aspirational list so the district can continue advocacy with city and state partners even if the immediate approved additions are smaller.

After debate the board amended an earlier motion to ask the superintendent to reduce the requested additions to $30,000,000 and return a revised budget that reflects the priorities discussed, including addressing the health-care cost increase. The amendment was moved by Wesley Hedgepeth and seconded by Sheryl Burke; when the chair called the vote several members were recorded saying “Yes” and at least two members — Doctor Harris Mohammad and Mister Jafari — were recorded as voting “No.” The motion carried. The board also approved convening a closed session under the Virginia code citation read on the record to discuss central-office personnel matters.

Next steps: the superintendent will return with a revised budget proposal aligned to the board’s direction and a prioritized CIP list for the March 3 meeting; the board plans to consider final approval on March 4. Several members asked that the administration explicitly identify which funding streams are restricted (for example, state allocations tied to specific mandates) so the board can understand which items are fungible and which are legally or contractually constrained.