Virginia Beach school board reviews FY26–27 budget impact of LCI shift and rising tech costs
Summary
At a Jan. 13 budget workshop, VBCPS budget staff outlined the state budget timetable, said the division's local composite index rose to 0.4172 (about 41.7% local share), summarized the governor's proposed supplements and one-time bonus, and discussed departmental reductions, health fund questions, and rising vendor licensing costs for Microsoft and Google.
School division budget staff and department directors presented a departmental-format FY26–27 budget briefing at the Virginia Beach City Public Schools board workshop on Jan. 13, 2026, outlining a new review process and several items that could shape the coming fiscal year.
Budget staff walked the board through the Virginia biennial budget process and key dates for the General Assembly. The presentation said VBCPS's local composite index (LCI) increased from 0.14138 for the 2024–26 biennium to 0.4172, which budget staff interpreted as meaning the city would be responsible for about 41.7% of the cost of the state's minimum education program. Staff warned that figures were preliminary as the governor's proposal moved through the General Assembly and that final numbers would depend on legislative action.
Highlights of the governor's proposed biennial budget cited in the presentation included: proposed 2% compensation supplements effective July 1, 2026 (and an additional 2% on 07/01/2027), a proposed one-time bonus for SOQ-funded instructional and support positions effective 06/01/2026 (with eligibility tied to local certification of at least a 2% bonus or equivalent action), and additional funding for school construction assistance and childcare subsidy programs. Presenters noted revenue comparisons that showed potential reductions in the projected FY27 deficit under the governor's proposal but stressed the projection remained preliminary and that a deficit could persist absent further balancing actions.
Department-level briefings outlined operating budgets and proposed adjustments. The Department of Budget & Finance presented a proposed FY26–27 operating budget of $11,978,023 (a $242,476 reduction and a net loss of 2 FTEs from the current amended operating budget of $12,220,499). Presentations across departments described cumulative reductions to date — staff estimated a combined 31 FTE reductions through vacancies and attrition and non-personnel reductions — and noted some internal service funds (notably the health insurance internal service fund) are not included in operating counts.
The Department of Technology reported its proposed operating budget of approximately $20.1 million, a reduction of about $293,000 (1.44%) driven by elimination of three positions through attrition. Technology staff said roughly 35% of the department's budget is personnel and singled out rising subscription costs as a material pressure: Microsoft licensing costs were described as projected to increase by roughly 10% and Google licensing by more than 25%, together generating about $300,000 in additional cost pressure for the division.
Board members asked for follow-up materials and clarifications: a detailed list of positions within each department, a salary-dollar breakdown separate from other operating costs for each departmental total, the division's plan for restoring the consolidated benefits/health insurance fund balance (scheduled to be addressed Feb. 10), usage and cost data for the Let's Talk/Onflow platform, and alternatives or cost estimates related to Chromebooks and early-grade device policies. Several board members expressed interest in studying Chromebook use for K–2 students and asked for an analysis that would include cost implications and impact on instruction.
Budget staff said they will provide requested details and include Q&A in the workshop packet distributed to board members ahead of future sessions. The board recessed at 5:24 p.m. and planned to reconvene at 6:00 p.m.
Next procedural steps include scheduled departmental presentations on Jan. 20 and Jan. 27 and continued vetting of the governor's proposal by the General Assembly.
