Charlottesville schools ask city for $4.9 million over formula to cover raises, staffing and student supports

Charlottesville City Schools asked the city for $4.9 million above the division’s formula allocation at a joint work session with City Council on Feb. 10, presenting a $124 million operating budget that school leaders said is needed to cover employee pay, staffing and student supports.

The request comes as state and local funding formulas shift: Dr. Gurley said a change in the local composite index means the state now contributes about 22.98% (about 23%) toward Standards of Quality-funded positions, and the division does not expect a rebenchmarking until 2026. “Our net request is, the $4,900,000, which is, over our formula amount, which we appreciate,” Dr. Gurley said during the presentation.

Why it matters: Salary and benefits account for roughly 74% of Charlottesville’s expenditures, the superintendent said, and the budget reflects several negotiated and recommended increases intended to keep pay competitive and retain staff amid rising costs. City staff said they are factoring the school request into their fiscal planning and working to close a remaining budget gap for the current cycle.

What the schools proposed: Dr. Gurley outlined personnel and program changes that together represent the bulk of the increase. Key items presented to council and the board include:

- A one-time correction to even out pay-step disparities for existing staff; the superintendent said equalizing steps costs about $2.2 million this year.

- A negotiated pay package that would give employees a step increase plus a negotiated raise (presented as step + 4%), described in the presentation with an estimated cost of about $2.5 million.

- Alignment with the governor’s recommendation for Standards of Quality (SOQ) positions, shown as an average 3% increase for those roles.

- Health insurance projections: staff presented a 6% increase in health-care costs (about $585,000).

- A one-time VRS (Virginia Retirement System) savings the schools expect this year of roughly $2.5 million, which reduces net personnel costs; after accounting for increases and savings, Dr. Gurley said the net personnel cost increase is about $3.5 million.

Staffing and student supports: The division proposed new and reallocated positions aimed at student supports and recruitment:

- Three additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) for English-language learners (projected cost about $283,000), down from an earlier estimate of five positions.

- Two division-level specialists (one reading, one math) and a family-engagement liaison.

- A half FTE for a health and medical sciences pathway, a recruitment specialist to focus on retaining and hiring across positions, and the inclusion of the transportation coordinator’s salary in the operating budget.

- Two clinical social-worker positions currently funded with one-time money were proposed to be moved into the operating budget through June 2026.

- A one-time retention bonus tied to a planned reconfiguration at Walker: $2,000 for licensed staff and $1,500 for support staff, to be paid in two equal installments (December and May 2026).

Collective bargaining and revenue context: School and labor representatives were present and Dr. Gurley described the recent collective-bargaining process as successful, saying both sides were heard. The division also expects about $538,000 of additional state revenue, including compensation supplements and increases in at-risk, lottery and English-language-learner funds; however, the local composite index change reduced the state’s share of funding for SOQ positions.

Budget totals and next steps: The presentation listed a total operating budget of about $124,000,000 and an overall change of roughly $6,000,000 across funds. City staff reported they have included the $4.9 million ask in their calculations but still face a gap and are reviewing department budgets; a city staff member told council and the school board the gap should be closed within the week leading up to upcoming budget deadlines. The school board scheduled its approval vote for Feb. 20, with a regular meeting on March 6.

What was not decided: The joint session was a presentation and discussion; council and the school board did not adopt a final budget at the Feb. 10 meeting. Dr. Gurley and city staff said additional work remains to reconcile department budgets and to prioritize items if available revenue falls short.