Virginia Beach schools outline budget calendar and early impacts of governor’s proposal

Crystal Pate, chief financial officer for Virginia Beach City Public Schools, gave a high‑level overview of the division’s budget process and the state timeline during the Jan. 14 administrative and workshop meeting. She said the superintendent’s estimate of needs (SEAN) and the capital improvement program will be presented to the board on Feb. 11 and cautioned that state revenue figures may change as the General Assembly works toward a final budget.

The presentation outlined how school budgets resemble household budgets—matching revenues to prioritized spending—but stressed important differences: school budgets rely on federal, state and local streams; staffing drives costs; and the division’s personnel costs are large. “For Virginia Beach City Public Schools staffing comprises around 85% of our operating budget,” Pate said. She also noted the division’s personnel data for the 2025–26 budget were captured from the position management system on Nov. 1 and will be reconciled to prior adopted budgets as part of SEAN development.

Why it matters: major revenue and policy decisions at the state level determine how much local school divisions must request from city governments and how much they receive directly. Pate said the division anticipates an overall revenue increase of approximately $30,100,000 for 2025–26, with most of that coming from the city under the local revenue‑sharing formula; projected state revenue increases total roughly $9,700,000 (about $4.3 million in state revenue and $5.4 million in state sales tax). The division is also monitoring the governor’s proposed biennial budget, released Dec. 18, 2024, and the General Assembly calendar that may alter funding between now and late February.

Pate reviewed the governor’s key K–12 proposals as shown in the Virginia Department of Education planning tool and the division’s estimated impact. The governor’s announcement included a combined set of proposals totaling roughly $1.5 billion in education items statewide. Notable line items the presentation listed (as described by the governor’s proposal) included $517,000,000 in increased direct aid, $290,000,000 for school construction grants, $380,000,000 for targeted English‑language learner and special education supports, $35,000,000 for dual enrollment and career and technical education funding, and $50,000,000 to establish a Virginia Opportunity Scholarship program. Pate emphasized that many of those line items fund state programs or other state agencies rather than providing direct per‑division aid.

Using the Virginia Department of Education’s planning calculation tool, Pate said Virginia Beach — the fourth‑largest division in the commonwealth — is projected to receive just under $10,000,000 from the governor’s package. She cautioned that some categories could produce minimal benefit to Virginia Beach because allocations and eligibility are tied to measures such as performance or local composite index (LCI). For the 2024–26 biennium the division’s LCI is 0.4138, meaning the city is required to pay about 41.38% of the cost of the state minimum program under the SOQ. Pate also noted that the governor’s proposed higher sales tax projection can reduce basic aid to divisions; under the division’s composite index every dollar increase in sales tax reduces basic aid by roughly 60 cents for Virginia Beach.

Pate summarized federal grant exposures and enrollment drivers: the division relies on federal grants such as Title I (about $17.7 million for 2024–25) and IDEA Part B (about $16.4 million), as well as smaller Title II and Title IV awards. Projected enrollment for 2025–26 is slightly over 64,000 students; while headcount has declined in recent years, the division said student needs have increased (economically disadvantaged students, English learners and students with disabilities), which places additional pressure on operating budgets.

The presentation referenced the 2023 JLARC (Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission) report that recommended near‑ and long‑term changes to the Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding formula. Pate noted JLARC’s near‑term suggestions—lifting the support cap, technical fixes, and changing averaging windows for the local composite index—could be phased in over several years. She further said some governor‑proposed items (for example, lab schools or dual‑enrollment funding) flow to state programs or the VDOE central budget rather than directly to divisions.

Board members asked for follow‑up materials. Pate said the division will finalize the proposed operating and CIP budgets for superintendent review toward the end of January, present the superintendent’s estimate of needs on Feb. 11, and asked board members to submit questions by email to the superintendent and CFO, copying all board members; staff will circulate answers at future meetings. No formal budget actions or votes were taken at this session.

Looking ahead, Pate said human resources and an external compensation consultant will model a limited set of pay scenarios for the board’s consideration during the February compensation presentation. The timeline presented anticipates updated SEAN documents after any General Assembly action and a final state budget by late February if the legislature meets schedule.