As a long-time educator, Jarvis Bailey feels as though he is qualified to offer a grounded take on the state of funding for public schools.
“If we were making an aircraft and we were doing it with the limited amount of staff we have, doors would be falling off and planes would be dropping out of the sky,” Bailey said during Tuesday’s joint work session of the Fredericksburg City School Board, of which he is a member, and City Council.
A mostly amicable conversation at the Walker-Grant Center occasionally devolved into heated debate as the two governing bodies discussed respective budgets that leave a $1.6 million gap for school funding.
“We need the funds. We need the personnel, and that’s what it is,” Bailey said. “Actually, we could ask for a lot more.”
Tuesday’s meeting started with a brief presentation from assistant city manager Mark Whitley recapping the city’s recommended FY 2025 budget, followed by a similar summary from City Schools Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Brody.
City Manager Tim Baroody’s recommended budget, which he presented to city council for the first time on March 12, funds city schools to the tune of $32.6 million, its largest single expenditure.
On March 29, the school board voted unanimously to approve Superintendent Marci Catlett’s proposed budget, which totals approximately $59 million and requests just under $34 million from the city’s operating fund.
Brody’s presentation also included a projection for FY 2026 that estimated $2 million in costs related to the opening of a new middle school.
Two factors complicating the schools’ (and by extension, the city’s) FY 2025 budget processes are a change in Fredericksburg’s score in the Local Composite Index (LCI) and a lack of clarity as to the amount of state funding for schools.
The LCI is a measure of a locality’s ability to fund education. Fredericksburg’s score increased 3.55 points from .5805 to .6163, which leads to a projected loss of $1.59 million in state revenue for FY 2025. However, recent calculations from a General Assembly Conference point to an additional $1.02 million for city schools.
Councilor Tim Duffy, who disclosed at the beginning of the meeting that he’s employed by the city schools, expressed a sense of urgency for the two bodies to meet again after the General Assembly meets on April 17.
“What is our plan for getting together once we find out some of these really important budget numbers that will come out of Richmond?” Duffy asked. “Will it require more meetings?”
School board member Matt Rowe asserted that if the current $1.6 million gap in funding persists, it would exhaust the tiered contingencies discussed by the school board during its budget process.
“The way that it’s structured right now, we could be going through all three phases of cuts, to the point where we could be putting instructional positions at risk,” Rowe said.
The evening’s most direct question came from Councilor Will Mackintosh (At-Large), who asked: “If council votes to fund the schools at the city manager’s recommended level, are we talking about layoffs, people losing their jobs?”
“Yes,” Catlett replied.
Councilor Jannan Holmes (At-Large), herself a former school board member, asked Baroody what — if any — avenues to bridging the $1.6 million gap exist beyond receiving additional state funds or advertising a higher real estate tax rate, a strategy that the city manager said would provide city council “built-in cover.”
A public hearing regarding the real estate tax rate is set for April 23.
“Of course, either side could make additional cuts,” Baroody said. “Council could direct city staff to reduce monies currently directed for city budget. Likewise, the superintendent could take similar direction from the school board. There are multiple paths to getting to a budget number.”
Expanding upon his colleague’s aeronautical metaphor, Rowe emphasized which trajectory the school board prefers.
“We need to be a Lockheed Martin school system,” Rowe said, “and we can’t do it on a Boeing budget.”
