Booz Statement on Classification-Based Appropriation

Please note: I intended to read this statement during our board meeting, under future business on the agenda scheduled for March 5, 2026. Since our board meeting was canceled this evening due to a power outage, I am posting my statement here and in advance of the City Council's March 10 meeting, where they signaled their plan to address a new resolution related to funding ACPS.

Kelly Carmichael Booz Statement, March 5, 2026:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to briefly raise an item that I believe warrants the board's and our community's attention.

Last night at our joint work session with City Council, the final slides of the city's presentation introduced, for the first time, a proposal to change how City Council appropriates funds to ACPS. Specifically, the city announced its intent to review a resolution on March 10, five days from now, signaling that beginning in FY 2028, Council would appropriate school funds by major classification rather than as a lump-sum transfer.

Process Concerns

I want to be direct about my concerns with the process. The presentation slides were provided to us shortly before the meeting, with limited time for review. The classification proposal was introduced at the very end of the city's presentation, and because our focus last night was rightly on the FY 2027 budget gap and the collective bargaining agreement, we did not have a substantive conversation about this proposal. Not a single question about it was asked or answered between the two bodies.

I also want to note that the resolution itself has not been shared publicly. We do not have the text. The community does not have the text. And yet Council intends to review it in five days with the intent to adopt a resolution on March 10.

For Council to commit to this direction after zero public discussion, on a change that would fundamentally restructure the fiscal relationship between our two bodies, is deeply concerning to me. This is not a minor procedural adjustment. Under Virginia Code § 22.1-89, when funds are appropriated by major classification, the school board is legally prohibited from spending funds outside those classifications without the governing body's consent.

That means every mid-year budget adjustment that crosses a category line, such as an influx of new students requiring teachers, bus routes, and meal service simultaneously; a special education student who moves into our district with an IEP that requires immediate services across multiple budget categories; a burst pipe that damages a classroom requiring repairs from one classification and device replacement from another; or the federal funding disruptions that Mayor Gaskins herself raised last night — all of these would require a formal Council vote before we could act.

What We Already Provide

I also want to be clear about what information is already available. Our adopted budget book breaks down spending by major classification, which you can find on page 123. Our annual audit, which Council receives, reports expenditures in these same categories. And our FY 2027 budget explicitly disclosed an $11.44 million salary reserve for collective bargaining, a figure that was in the budget request Council has had for weeks. The tentative agreement with EAA came in at $12.7 million, roughly $1.3 million above that reserve. This was not a surprise to anyone who read our budget.

So the question we should all be asking is: what problem is this proposal actually solving? If the goal is transparency, we already provide it. If the goal is oversight of how school funds are spent, that information is already publicly available and reported annually.

What Our Own Charter Says

And here I want to raise something that I believe Council should carefully consider before acting. I have reviewed the Alexandria City Charter, and it tells a very clear story about how school funds should be treated.

Charter Section 6.03, which governs the preparation of budgets, states that the City Manager may make revisions to budget estimates from departments and agencies, and then provides a specific exception. It says, and I quote: "except that in the case of the school board he may recommend a revision only in its total estimated expenditure." Only in its total. Not by classification. Not by category. In its total.

This is not an isolated provision. The charter systematically carves out school funds from the city's internal financial control apparatus. Section 5.04(c) gives the Director of Finance authority over all city expenditures — and then says, "This subsection shall not apply to the administration of school funds." Section 5.04(d), which establishes financial and budgetary control over city departments, contains the same exclusion: "This subsection shall not apply to the administration of school funds." Section 5.08 excludes public schools from the Director of Finance's accounting supervision. And Section 4.02 establishes the City Manager's authority over all city affairs "except those responsibilities vested by law in the school board."

The charter's drafters made a deliberate choice: school funds are to be treated differently from other city expenditures. The City Manager engages with the school budget as a total. The city's financial officers do not exercise budgetary control over school funds.

Classification-based appropriation under § 22.1-94 would create exactly the kind of category-level expenditure control over school funds that our charter deliberately places outside the city's reach. I believe both bodies' legal counsel should thoroughly examine whether this proposal is consistent with the charter's structure and intent before any action is taken.

Questions Council Should Consider

Beyond the charter question, I would respectfully ask Council to consider the following:

How will this interact with collective bargaining? Our collective bargaining resolution states that nothing in it shall restrict the Board's authority to establish its budget or appropriate funds. Salary costs span multiple classifications. If Council caps the Instruction classification, but collective bargaining obligations require spending above that cap, what happens? Does that effectively give Council a veto over how negotiated agreements are implemented?

What transfer thresholds and timelines will apply? For example, Virginia Beach allows its CFO to approve transfers within a classification up to $125,000 and requires both the School Board and City Council to approve anything that crosses classification lines. What process is Alexandria envisioning? How quickly can Council turn around a transfer request when an operational need arises mid-year?

Is Council aware that this runs counter to state policy? The Virginia Appropriation Act includes recurring language encouraging localities to provide "increased flexibility to school boards by appropriating state and local funds for public education in a lump sum." The overwhelming norm is lump-sum.

What is the additional administrative burden? Classification-based appropriation creates a new approval workflow for every cross-category budget amendment. At a time when both bodies are cutting positions and seeking efficiencies, we should understand the cost of this new process before we commit to it.

Why now, and why this fast? This proposal emerged on the same evening that ACPS and EAA announced our first-ever collective bargaining agreement. It was introduced alongside a presentation that framed the $12.7 million CBA cost as consuming all of the city's new revenue growth. In Norfolk last year, city council used the threat of classification-based appropriation to compel the school board to close nine schools. Our community deserves an honest conversation about what governance objective this serves.

The Request

I am respectfully asking the City Council to allow this proposed resolution to allow both bodies and the public time to have a meaningful conversation about this proposal. This is a significant governance change. It deserves more than zero minutes of discussion before a vote. I understand this is framed as a resolution of intent rather than a final action.

But a public commitment by Council to move toward classification-based appropriation fundamentally changes the dynamic of every budget conversation that follows. It signals to our staff, our unions, and our families a direction that will shape how FY 2028 is planned and negotiated. The Mayor herself said last night that the goal of this timeline was, and I quote, 'to make sure that we have enough time to talk through with the community council's intent.'

In my opinion, we agree. That conversation should begin before Council commits to a direction — not after.

I believe in transparency and accountability. I believe in partnership between our two bodies. And I believe that a change of this magnitude, one that would affect how we fund our schools, implement our collective bargaining agreements, and manage a $368 million budget, should be the product of deliberation, not a surprise.

I would welcome a joint work session dedicated specifically to this topic, where we can examine the legal framework, review our own charter, learn from the experiences of the very few Virginia localities that use this approach, and discuss whether there are alternative mechanisms that could address the Council's concerns without the operational constraints that classification-based appropriation creates.

Proposed Board Action

Finally, I would like to suggest that this board consider sending a formal memo to the City Council expressing our desire for Council to delay the resolution and to engage with us in a substantive dialogue before acting. I have prepared a draft memo for the board's consideration that outlines the questions I've raised tonight, including the charter analysis, and requests that Council provide the resolution text to both the School Board and the public, and that we schedule a dedicated joint session on this topic before any vote is taken.

would ask that if there is consensus, we authorize the Chair to send it to the Mayor and Council on behalf of the board.

Our teachers and staff are watching. Our families are watching. They deserve to know that the governance decisions we make about how to fund their schools are made thoughtfully, transparently, and collaboratively. Thank you.