Goochland County superintendent outlines two budget scenarios; board signals support for county‑funded option

At a Jan. 28, 2025 budget workshop, the superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools presented two budget scenarios and said the board had given direction to prepare a draft balanced budget based on the county‑funded option.

The superintendent framed the budget around two scenarios: Scenario 1, a flat budget with no additional county funding and no 3% cost‑of‑living (COLA) increase for employees; and Scenario 2, a county‑funded approach that would allow a 3% COLA and a set of targeted investments. "Public schools are the lifeline to economic vitality in communities," the superintendent said, linking local population growth to school quality. He cited county population growth from 24,727 in 2020 to 27,486 as of July 1 last year, an increase of 2,759 residents (11.2%).

The superintendent identified specific fiscal pressures that make a flat budget difficult. He said roughly $262,260 of initiatives previously funded with ARPA dollars have expired, and cited an additional $307,930 in reductions tied to other revenue changes, which he said contribute to a year‑over‑year funding shortfall under a flat budget scenario. He described a technology encumbrance of about $270,000 that had been procured previously to secure a market adjustment, and said covering those costs without new revenue would require tradeoffs such as delaying the purchase of a school bus (he cited a bus cost near $147,000) and deferring two maintenance vehicles.

Under Scenario 2, the superintendent said the county’s expected contribution could approach $1.4 million and would support a roughly 4.7% year‑over‑year increase in the overall budget. He estimated a 3% COLA would cost about $885,000. Specific personnel proposals under the county‑funded scenario included an elementary assistant principal at an incremental cost the superintendent estimated at $32,000 (after prorating), converting a part‑time ESL teacher to full time (~$35,000), and increasing an EMT teacher from .25 to .5 FTE (~$9,100). He also described three district interventionist positions as a high‑impact option and noted the superintendent’s estimate that those positions could affect hundreds of students across multiple campuses.

Board members questioned priorities and tradeoffs. One asked whether the listed priorities were ranked; the superintendent said they were a rough prioritization and that, if asked to pick a single adjustment, he would move stipend increases and an assistant robotics coach ahead of a work‑based learning coordinator. Another board member asked whether interventionists should be prioritized over hiring more classroom teachers to reduce class sizes; the superintendent replied that "interventionists are not there in support of teachers. They're there in support of students." A separate board member asked whether administration would receive the same 3% COLA as teachers; the superintendent confirmed the proposal included a 3% increase for all employees, and a board member said she expected teachers to be prioritized if funding proved insufficient.

The superintendent outlined next steps and dates: a draft balanced budget will be presented at the Feb. 4 workshop for approval to advertise for public hearing; a budget hearing is scheduled for the regular meeting on Feb. 11; the county administrator’s recommended budget that includes schools is due Feb. 18; the school board is scheduled to approve the 2025‑26 budget and salary scales Feb. 25; and the school board budget will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 4. The superintendent said he had received direction from three board members to prepare a draft budget exercising Scenario 2 and would bring that draft to the next workshop.

The board did not take a formal vote to adopt a budget at the Jan. 28 workshop; members indicated support for proceeding with the county‑funded scenario and adjourned to reconvene at the next scheduled meeting.