Chesapeake schools propose $813.4 million budget for 2025–26 with pay increases and 42 new positions

The Chesapeake School Board heard a presentation on the superintendent’s proposed operating budget for the 2025–26 school year, a plan that totals $813,400,000 and includes a 3% compensation increase and funding for 42 new positions, Superintendent Dr. Cotton said.

The proposal, presented by Dr. Cotton and Chief Financial Officer Melissa Glaude, outlines projected revenue and expenditures, staffing changes and one-time projects. The administration said the operating revenue in the proposed budget is $669,000,000, an increase of about $25,000,000 over the prior year, driven in part by the governor’s amended biennial budget and an $8,400,000 increase in the city contribution.

The proposal matters because it sets pay, staffing and service levels for the district and must be reconciled with final state and city budgets. Dr. Cotton said the presentation aligns the budget with the division’s strategic plan, Empower 2025, and highlights priorities for teaching and learning, staffing and school safety.

Key proposal details include a projected average daily membership (ADM) of 39,900 — an increase of 448 students compared with the prior-year budget — and a $9,000,000 reduction in the total proposed budget compared with the current year. The administration told the board the governor’s amended budget contributes about $15,800,000 of the revenue increase, while federal revenues were estimated to rise by roughly $750,000.

On compensation, the budget includes a 3% overall pay increase for teachers and unified-scale staff: Dr. Cotton and Mrs. Glaude said that is achieved by a 1.5% scale increase plus a 1.5% step increase for most employees. The proposed starting teacher salary would rise from $55,184 to $56,012. Health insurance costs are projected to increase; the administration used trend assumptions of 7.8% for plan year 2025 and 7% for 2026 when forecasting benefits.

The proposal adds 42 positions and transitions 41 roles previously funded by grants into the operating budget to avoid losing services if grants expire. School-based new positions listed by the administration include 14 English learner teachers, five general classroom teachers, one teacher to support special education and homebound students, 10 full-time student activity coordinators (to replace a middle school athletic supplement), four clinic assistants, four custodians, one administrative specialist and one coordinator for English learners. Central-office additions included an enrollment technician and a custodian.

The administration also proposed program and operational changes: expanding work-based learning coordinator contracts from 190 to 200 days, piloting a VHSL esports program at select high schools, converting a part-time Medicaid clerk to full-time, reclassifying certain HVAC positions, and providing a master’s degree supplement to eligible staff not currently receiving one.

Mrs. Glaude provided details on fund flows and category changes. Personnel and fringe costs were the largest expenditure driver, with an increase of about $21.5 million largely attributable to the compensation package and staffing changes. Purchase services are expected to rise by roughly $7.6 million to reflect actual costs for transportation for special-needs and homeless students, technology renewals and UKG (the new HR and payroll system). The capital outlay recommendation is lower by about $1.9 million because some portable-building replacements are proposed to be funded with one-time funds and two leases will be paid off in the current fiscal year.

The administration proposed using one-time funds for several capital projects, including turf fields and resurfaced tracks at some schools, additional security vestibules, and a school bus routing solution; details and appropriation requests will be brought back to the board in March. Mrs. Glaude also noted a modest increase to school meal prices: breakfast up 10 cents to $1.70 and lunch up 10 cents to $3.20, subject to state and federal guidance.

Dr. Cotton said the budget development process began in September and incorporated stakeholder input gathered by the Department of Communications, Planning and Engagement. Mrs. Glaude told the board a digital copy of the proposed budget would be posted on the division’s website at 8 a.m. the day after the presentation.

The board and administration framed the proposal as contingent on final action by the General Assembly and the city. Mrs. Glaude noted the General Assembly’s short session schedule and said the board would receive updates after the legislature completes action on amendments. The administration outlined the upcoming schedule: a public hearing at the next board meeting, a second public hearing and request for final board action at the board’s first meeting in March, and a May 19 reconciliation with the city council if needed.

Board members praised elements of the proposal in discussion. Board member Michael Lemonia specifically called out the addition of student activity coordinators and the turf-and-track requests as priorities.

The board took no final vote on the operating budget at the meeting; the presentation opened the public-feedback and formal-adoption process.