Good evening. I called to order this February 3rd, 2026, Loudoun County Special School Board meeting for the fiscal year 27 operating budget adoption. We'll start off tonight with our disclosures, and I'll go first As a member of the Loudoun County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and to the general public in connection with the item on tonight's agenda regarding the budget and or health insurance and related benefits, and any other discussion that may include
or affect benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically, as a school board member, I am eligible to receive health insurance and related benefits as an LCPS employee. These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees well in excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may also be affected, of which I am included. I can and will participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Next up, um, vice Chair Donahue. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a member
of the Loudoun County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and to the general public in connection with the item on tonight's agenda regarding employee salaries, the budget and or health insurance, and any other discussion that may include or affect salary and benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically my spouse, my minor children, and I are enrolled in LCPS health insurance that may be affected by any potential changes to employee salaries, the budget, and or health insurance. Additionally, my sister-in-law is an LCPS employee who does not reside with me and is not dependent on me. These subjects include thousands of employees, well in excess of the statutory three employees whose
interests may be affected, of which my spouse, my minor children, my sister-in-law, and I'm included. I can and will participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a member of the Loudoun County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and to the general public in connection with the item on tonight's agenda regarding the budget and or health insurance and related benefits and any, any other discussion that may include or affect benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically, as a school board member, I am eligible
to receive health insurance and related benefits as an LCPS employee. These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees when the excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may be affected, of which I'm included, I can and will participate fairly objectively in the public's interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public re records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. LaBelle. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a member of the Loudin County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and to the general public in connection
with the item on tonight's agenda regarding the budget and or health insurance and related benefits, and any other discussion that may include or affect benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically, as a school board member, I am eligible to receive health insurance and related benefits as an LCPS employee. In addition, as a former LCPS employee, I as well as my spouse receive Medicare Advantage Insurance benefits through LCPS. These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees well in excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may also be
affected, of which my spouse and I are included. I can and will participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Thank you, Ms. Riccardi. As a member of the Loudoun County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and to the general public in connection with the item on tonight's agenda regarding the budget and or health insurance and related benefits and any other discussion that may include or affect benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically as a school board member, I'm eligible to receive health insurance
and related benefits as an LCPS employee. These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees well in excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may also be affected, of which I am included. I can and will participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Thank you, Ms. Shernoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a member of the Loudoun County School Board, I make the following disclosure to the school board and the general public in connection with the item on tonight's agenda regarding the budget and or health insurance and related benefits and any other discussion that may include
or affect benefits for LCPS employees. Specifically, as a school board member, I am eligible to receive health insurance and related benefits as an LCPS employee. These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees well in excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may also be affected, of which I am included. I can and will participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public records of the clerk of the school board for five years. Thank you. Um, before we start with our agenda tonight, I would like to just take a point of personal privilege and say, um, Ms.
Sharon Willoughby, happy birthday, birthday. Um, with that, uh, we do have the opportunity tonight, um, to ask any follow up questions in terms of, uh, the responses to budget questions. So for item 3.01, um, board members will open the floor. Do you have any questions at this time? Oh, Ms. Shernoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as I was looking through the questions in the budget packet this weekend, um, the question about the COLA difference also surfaced multiple times from multiple members.
So I just wanted to get clarity one last time. I know I feel like we've been talking about it in circles, but I just wanted to give staff the opportunity one last time to just understand what the impact of some of that might be. Should there be a motion to reduce the COLA within certain groups that are not included in the collective bargaining unit? Thank you, Mr. Schoff. I'll take that question. Um, so without knowing the motion broadly, if the board would be considering a motion to apply a different COLA increase to certain
non-certified non bargaining confidential positions, there would be broader structural implications for our salary scales and, and our employees. So salary scale B was intentionally designed to function as a unified compensation structure for non-certified employees. Prior to fiscal year 21, LCPS operated under multiple separate salary scales, including a classified and an administrative salary scale. And over time, that structure contributed to poor morale,
perceived inconsistent treatment, and a divide between employees doing essential work across the organization. Employees on the classified scale included positions, um, custodians, bus drivers, electricians, HVAC technicians, nurses, and other critical support operational staff. Uh, often those individuals in those positions expressed that they felt treated differently or less than, um, particularly when promotional movement required them crossing into separate administrative scales.
Uh, that included coordinators, supervisors, assistant principals, directors, uh, supervisory positions. Beginning in fiscal year 18 and 19, the division undertook significant work to review the classification and compensation of positions across these scales. This was the first time work of that nature was done, and this included bridging the gap between the classified and the administrative scale by adding lanes, we called them the professional lanes to the beginning
of the administrative scale, there was a large gap between the highest level of the classified scale and the lowest level of the admin scale. And so three lanes were added before ultimately merging the classified and administrative structures into what we called the universal scale. This was a single salary scale, and so by fiscal year 22 LCPS completed that transition, closing the divide, and creating a more equitable, consistent system that supported career growth
and internal alignment across all the job families. With that context, carving out certain supervisory or school administrator roles for a different COLA increase, if that was the motion before the board would simply be a comp, would not simply be a compensation adjustment. It would effectively require separating those groups back out of the unified salary structure and recreating that two tiered framework, the division worked intentionally to move away from. Additionally, over time, this would also contribute
to wage compression where the pay difference between employees and their supervisors or specialists above them would narrow making advancement into a higher responsibility roles less attractive. So in short, this is not simply a COLA decision, it was more of a structural decision with implications for equity morale and career progression. Thank you. Board members. Any further questions? Mr. Pepper? Uh, Ms. Boland, thank you for that, uh, explanation.
It's really helpful to kind know the history of everything. Um, can you talk a little bit more about the wage compression that would happen? Um, not so much if we separated out the scale, but if, you know, one group got a certain COLA and a different position, got a little less of a cola just this one time, would that wage compression still happen? So the short answer would be if we, if it's just this one time, no, but there would be no guarantee of just this one time. I, I know what is intended for the next three years of the collective bargaining negotiations,
but beyond that, I'm, I'm not sure, uh, the union could still have a desire to negotiate higher COLA increases for our non-certified bargaining unit, um, over our certified bargaining unit. And if that were the case and the board continued to match what would be then the administrative salary scale with that of the certified bargaining unit over time, that compression compression would occur. Mr. Riccardi, Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. So, and again, because I wasn't part of the privy to any
of the negotiation pieces, just out of curiosity, um, when you're, when you're looking at rights, writing salaries and getting people kind of righted in the right levels and steps, um, was the COLA discussion and adding four and 5% cola? Um, like what was the strategy around that, I guess is my question? And I asked that because in the commercial industry space, employees never get cola. I mean, that just, it's not a, it's not a normal, uh, a thing that happens in the corporate world.
Um, and if it does, it's usually based on the federal or the state, which is, um, if I understand federal is 2.8 and state is 2.6. So we're we're way above that. So was the cola, I don't understand the, the strategy between, I know we're doing step increases, why we didn't continue with the step increases to get people in the right thing and then just do a regular COLA or how that all came about. And I'm not, I'm not, um, it's, I'm not asking that in an accusatory way, I'm just curious as, as how that was sorted out doing not doing more stepping increases versus cola.
So I'll do my best. I I can't speak to necessarily the strategy behind negotiations. Um, negotiations in the room based on the ground rules is confidential. However, I think I can still answer your question. So when it comes to step increases, steps are based on experience and so we wouldn't offer additional steps to right size a salary. Those are specific to a person, whereas the level or lane and the cola are more specific to a position, if that's helpful.
And from a strategy perspective, or offering COLA from the private sector position, it is not always, um, As, as High as what, uh, the, the public sector what LCPS has received in the past several years. However, the strategy has been to ensure that LCPS is the employer of choice, um, recognizing that our staff often can't afford to live in the county that they work in.
And so trying to match that affordability as well as the compensation piece. Um, and while we don't lead the market, we try to be competitive in the market. So those have always been the pieces driving our strategy around, um, the way that we review and look at compensation and the cola we offer School board members. Any further questions? Seeing none, we will move on to the real reason why we're here tonight. Right. Um, our item number four, our action item,
um, budget adoption, vice chair. Donahue, do you have a motion? Yes, I do. Thank you Madam Chair. I move that the Loudoun County School Board adopt the FY 27 superintendent's estimate of needs and approve the FY 27 budget resolution. I have a motion by Vice Chair Donahue. Do I have a second? Second. Oh, thank you. I have a second. By Mr. Stinson, it has been properly moved and seconded that the Loudoun County School Board adopt the fiscal year 27 superintendent's estimate of needs
and approved the fiscal year 27 budget resolution. Is there any discussion or amendments regarding the base motion? Ms. Shernoff? Thank you Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget by moving the following one-time purchases totaling $1,175,000 to FY 26 year-end funding 160,000 flight simulators, 232 600, 230 $2,600 for new floor and maintenance equipment, $597,400
for portable replacement school radios and 185,000 replacement of wide area mowers and other equipment and funding them out of the projected end year FY 26 appropriated unspent fund balance. I just realized that we need to pick up the staff's recommended changes motion. So I'm gonna, oh, we Will Pause, pause and come back to you. Thank you so much for understanding. Um, Ms. Donahue, do you have a second motion? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget by enacting staff's recommended change
to reduce one assistant principal in accordance to, with the enhanced staffing standard for cost savings of $212,000, $212,804. Thank you. I have a motion by Vice Chair Donahue. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. Shernoff. The motion has been properly moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion? We will move to amend the base motion by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members please close or please record your vote.
Oh, good. Okay. Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present. With that, we will move back, um, to Ms. Shernoff. Um, could you please restate your motion? I would Love to. I was hoping you would give me a second chance. I love it. Um, I move to amend the budget by moving the following one time purchases totaling in one $1,175,000 to FY 26 year end funding 160,000 flight simulators 202
232,600 for new floor and maintenance equipment, $597,400 for portable replacement school radios and $185,000 replacement of wide area mowers and other school equipment and funding them out of the projected year end FY 26 appropriated unspent fund balance. Thank you. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as, as previously amended by Ms. S Shernoff. Is there a second? Second. Second.
I have a second by Dr. Rashid. Ms. Shernoff, would you please like to speak to your motion? Thank you Madam Chair. Um, this amount of money is really to cover what will be the next motions that I will make, uh, for the tote board to cover the initiatives. These one-time funds, which sometimes we use for year end funds are things that, you know, I feel that we can delay in terms of getting some other initiatives across the finish line now. Thank you. Is the, uh, school board members,
is there any discussion on Ms. Smirnoff's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Alright, seeing no discussion, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Ms. Shernoff by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members please record your vote Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present. Is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Ms. Shernoff? Thank you Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget to fund the first phase of a two year rollout of the career IB program in three high schools at an initial
cost of $25,500. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Ms. Shernoff. Is there a second? Second. Oh, thank you, Mr. Um, I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Ms. Shernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I mentioned this at last Thursday's meeting, um, especially since one of the IB schools sits in my district, Leesburg, these high schools are asking for the career IB add-on program. We'll have cost implications for the next year, um, in terms of staffing, but this initial cost seems manageable.
And given our CTE priorities and expansion, I feel that this not only pairs well with expanding the IB program, but also falls in line with with those goals. Thank you. School Board members. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion? We will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members please record your vote Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present for the vote. All right, is there another amendment
to the base motion as a previously amended? Yes. Ms. Shernoff, thank You for your patience. I move to amend the budget by adding two English Learner Content Specialists for a cost of $272,719. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amend by Ms. Shernoff. Is there second? Second? I have a second, but I'm Vice Chair Donahue. Um, Ms. Chernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I also mentioned this Thursday. I am looking to expand this department in terms of not only
on this end of management, but just in terms of professional learning and the success that we have seen with that professional learning by the different schools that have adopted it. This, I believe, will go directly to supporting that learning and especially will enhance the knowledge of our teachers working face-to-face with our English language learners. And that goes for the next amendment too. So I will not speak to that one. Thank you. I mean, not for not speaking, but for the clarification, right? No, no. Um, is school board members, is there any discussion on Ms.
Shernoff current amendment? Um, Ms. Riccardi, thank You so much. Um, so is this for, um, a range of professional development, including like the Q tell stuff and whatnot? Mr. Slevin, I don't wanna put you on the spot, but I know you answered it in my board doc question about what a content specialist would be responsible for. Do you wanna elaborate? Yes. Each additional content specialist that would be, um, in the English Learner Office would expand our ability to provide EL Foundations training across our English learner teachers, as well as our general education staff, three to four sections, um, two English
language development, um, sessions, three Q Tell Institutes and approximately 400 walkthroughs in coaching visits across, um, all of our schools. And so for each position, you, it would be significantly adding to the capacity of support for our teachers in the classroom. Great. Thank you so much. I I cannot, um, express how appreciative I am of this motion This is, I think if, um, if this is what you get, this is how you get scalability in the ability to be able to really impact a broader number of English learner students.
And so I'm really excited that we're making this investment so that we can, um, I mean, I guess the best way to describe it's is kind of getting, getting the train the trainers. So instead of having to spend a lot of money on external training, we're getting the people trained in house so that they can work with our teachers directly. And it's, so, it's a great way to be really responsible with our dollars and making sure that we're expanding our in-house capabilities. So thank you for this. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing no further discussion, we will move
to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Electronic Vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members please record your vote Clerk, please close and display the vote. That motion passes unanimously with all school board members present. All right. Is there another amendment to the base motion? Ms. Shernoff Halfway there. I move to amend the budget by adding three elementary English learner facilitators at a cost of $409,079. Thank you. And, um, given that you spoke to your motion,
I'll open the floor to school board members. Is there any discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. Um, second. Thank you, Ms. Donahue. Mrs. Griffiths. Um, I'm hoping when I I get to my amendment, um, we will have more money for, um, um, Ms. Chernow's motions. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion? Um, let's see. We have a motion to amend the base motion
as previously amended by Ms. Shernoff that was seconded by Ms. Donahue and seeing no further discussion, we will move forward to amend the base motion as previously amended by Electronic Vote Clerk, please open the vote School Board members please record your vote Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present. Is there another amendment to the base motion? Ms. Shernoff? Thank you Madam Chair. This amendment really comes from multiple board members, particularly Ms.
LaBelle and Mr. Pepper. And I, I move to amend the budget and restore one educational diagnostic diagnostician at a cost of $130,338. Thank you Ms. S Shernoff. Is there a second? Ms. LaBelle? Second. Second. Second. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. LaBelle. The, Uh, Ms. Chernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? This, um, I believe was being adjusted. It was being taken out in the c uh, due to the staffing standard, um, with enrollment, but the needs we have discussed are high.
Um, and this role is particularly influential in keeping, making sure that testing that, uh, is appropriate is getting done in a timely manner. I've personally worked with these educational diagnosticians, we've, we've heard loud and clear from them too, the, the value of this position, uh, through lots of feedback over the last couple of weeks. And so, um, like I said, in conjunction with several others that have also wanted to support this I moving this forward. Thank you. School Board members. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion? We will move further. We will move to further amend the base motion
as previously amended by Electronic Vote Clerk, please open the vote. School Board members, please record your vote Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes with eight school board members. Voting yes, including Ms. Riccardi, Mr. Fon, Ms. Shernoff, myself, vice Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rashid and Ms. LaBelle. And one school board member voting? No, Mrs. Griffith. Alright, is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Ms. Shernoff? Last one. I move to amend the budget by implementing the next phase of device storage carts
for first grade at a cost of $300,000 in funding them out of the projected year end FY 26 appropriated unspent fund balance. Thank you. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Ms. S Shernoff. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Riccardi. I have a second by Ms. Riccardi. Uh, Ms. Shernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Over the last year through my work in curriculum and instruction, we have talked, um, extensively about device usage for our youngest learners,
uh, particularly in our meeting in December. And I have brought this forward. We've heard from public comment, I've heard from the parents in my community. We're talking about first graders, um, in one-to-one device usage. And I feel very passionately that this might be the beginning of a wave of examining how we use technology as a tool for learning, not the only means to learning. Um, and so I'm very proud to bring this forward. I'm excited for this phased work to, um, take place. And I really believe from a child development standpoint that we are right on track in the right direction with this motion.
Thank you. School board members, is there any discussion on Ms. Smirnoff's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Mr. Pepper? Um, thank you Madam Chair. I would also, um, one, like to echo what Ms. S Shernoff has said about, uh, the way that we're using, using technology with our youngest learners. But I also want to recognize that by putting this into our, uh, budget this year, there may be further cost savings down the line as we look at the replacement cycle for the laptop. So this is a, a really well thought out, um, amendment. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mrs. Griffith? Um,
If you could clarify again, these carts, um, are these elementary students going to have the, uh, Chromebooks or they're gonna be brought in on carts? I'm trying to understand. Thank you, Mr. Shernoff. Mr. Smith can probably chime in a little better, but what my intention is with this motion is instead of them taking them home every night, they would move to what kindergarten is currently the model that they are using, which is that every classroom would have a cart that would hold the Chromebooks and they would keep them at school. So they would be able to use them during the day if they needed them for an assignment
or in some cases intervention. And we would make sure that they have access to them, but they would not be going home every night. Um, to just kind of move away from that reliance on the digital piece. Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. Smith? Oh, just wanted to add that it would still be a one-to-one deployment. Every student would be assigned a device, they would just be stored at school. So I've heard a couple of confusing comments about that. Just wanted to clarify. We're not changing our deployment model. I would just like to take a moment to say, um, I am very pleased to see this amendment on the table and I'm looking forward to, um, supporting it.
This really has been an ongoing conversation with our school board as we've reflected even before the law changed in Virginia about the need really to prioritize, um, real learning in our classroom and to, to really focus on what the best practices are. And this is definitely a situation I can say as a parent that has evolved over the course of my own children's life and lives. And we are understanding better every day how, um, technology is impacting us all.
And, um, I think I, I can foresee in the future, perhaps continuing this conversation to include other grades. Um, but I am grateful to see this on the floor tonight. Uh, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote School Board members please record your vote Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present.
All right, let's see. Are there further motions to amend the base motion as previously amended? Oh, Mr. Finon, thank You Madam Chair. And, and thank you Mr. Pepper for his work on this amendment as well. I move to amend the FY 27 budget by adding one special education mentor coach at a cost of $136,360. Um, to, for clarity, this is an additional special education mentor coach on top of the, uh, addition that's already in the C Thank you. I have a motion to further amend. The base motion is previously amended by Mr. Stinson.
Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Um, Mr. Stinson, would you like to speak further to your motion? Uh, Yes, please. Um, so we have an increasing number of novice special education teachers and, uh, currently with the two, uh, mentor coaches we have, they're serving, uh, 45, uh, teachers, around 45 teachers each. Um, by adding not one but two special education mentor coaches, we can get to the goal ratio of coach to, uh, novice teacher.
This is gonna help our teachers, uh, develop in the classroom to serve their students. And it's gonna help, um, with retention of our teachers so they feel supported, um, in their, their first year of teaching. Thank you. School board members, um, is there any discussion on Mr. Vincent's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Okay, of course, Ryan, that's so classic. Alright. Alright. Um, that was funny. Thanks. Um, seeing no further discussion. Right, um, we will move
to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote. Um, clerk, please open the vote Board members, please record your vote Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all school board members present all. Is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Uh, Mr. Stinson? Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I move to amend the budget by reducing the COLA from 5% to 4% for the following positions in the non collective bargaining
unit positions on level 21 and above on scale B, principals, assistant principals and deans for a cost savings of 1,184,008 101,000,001 184,800 $895 in the school operating fund, $26,207 in the school nutrition fund, $28,536 in the grant fund and $3,554 in the self-insurance fund and to reallocate $1,184,895 in the
school operating fund to the school nutrition fund via a non-departmental transfer out account to help cover operational costs. All right, I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Mr. Finon. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Vice Chair Donahue. Um, Mr. Finon, would you like to speak further to your amendment? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I am proposing this amendment because we have need in the nutrition fund. And I think this is a fair approach to the cola. I, um, appreciate, um, Ms. Willoughby and Ms.
Boland for, um, working with me over, over the last week on this amendment. And, um, I understand concerns about wage compression when uh, folks are all on the same, uh, salary scale. And I would not intend for this kind of differentiation to go forward into, um, you know, into perpetuity. But because our teachers are, uh, getting a 4% cola, um, uh, it seems, uh, entirely fair to have, uh, folks, principals, assistant principals, deans, supervisors on level 21 and above to also have that 4%.
Um, the reason that we have a 5% COLA for non-certified positions in the bargaining unit is because these are folks such as our, uh, our bus drivers, custodians, and nutrition managers working in our cafeterias, um, who have been historically undercompensated. And that 5% COLA was to recognize that fact and, and, uh, give them an extra boost. And I, uh, think that I wanted to make sure in this amendment that folks who are doing similar position in the non bargaining unit are also benefiting from that 5% cola.
Um, uh, because it, for, for re people do not always control whether they're in the bargaining unit or not. And I wanted to make sure that folks, um, in those similar positions, uh, are are receiving that 5% cola. But for folks who are level 21 and above, um, I want to make sure that it's, uh, that this is an equitable solution with the, with the amount that our teachers are, are getting in terms of the cola and it's going towards ensuring that we can address some of the gaps in our nutrition fund, um, whether that be credit card fee increases
or the increase to school lunches. Um, so thank you. Thank you. Um, school board members. Any further discussion? Um, Mr. Pepper. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr. Sson, um, for kind of explaining this. And you know, I, when we go onto this, it's, it's one of those things that you're very torn about, right? Because I know that we, we have issues in our school nutrition fund, we have issues in some other places where we, we can kind of take some burden off the parents and some burden off the community, but we hate to put that burden on the back of a staff.
That, and that being said, um, it was also kind of challenging to find that line, right? Where in that universal scale do we draw this distinction between, you know, those who get the 5% cola like those and the non-certified staff are getting in the bargaining unit and the 4% that the teachers are getting. And I think that Mr. Fenson has worked really closely with Ms. Willoughby and Ms. Boland, thank you guys for your work on this to try to find that right line to kind of help us do that balance. So I wanna thank him for, for bringing this up. Um, and with the understanding that we went back
to the budget and said, you know, we gave the teachers a 4% cola, but your principal and your assistant principal got a 5%. I don't know how well that's gonna play, um, with our teachers in our community. So it's gonna put that out there. Sure enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I agree with a lot of what you said in terms of the struggle. Uh, this one is probably the one I've gone back and forth on in terms of the amount of questions and understanding and meetings and discussions. And, you know, last year we struggled with some things in terms of understanding. And personally I can speak for myself, I struggled
with understanding what was going on with the bigger picture with retiree benefits. I feel similarly in this uncertainty about the cola. And I think a lot of that has to do with the newness of the collective bargaining agreement colliding with our structures. And so I am not going to support this tonight. I've gone back and forth on it. The reason being is there, I think there are some larger context and dominoes and uncertainties in terms of future budgets and what we might be facing that I am worried we might not be able to rectify and what right size.
Um, and with that unknown and not fully understanding the context of those implications, I cannot fully support a decision I don't fully understand the implications of. So that is why I am struggling with the idea that teachers get a 4% and other groups get a 5%, and I am really going to dig in here over the next year, and I would encourage and hope and ask that maybe as a school board we can be, begin to learn more about how those two things have collided. And I think we're all learning, um, in terms of the newness
of our collective bargaining agreement. And I'm grateful that the collective bargaining agreement supports our teachers and has provisions in there for them for the next three years. And I supported that. And so I'm, that's where I'm landing today, but I wanted to make sure that people understood where I stand. Thank you. School board members. Any further discussion? Um, well, I, I will jump in. Um, I will be the first one to admit, um, that when I first saw the, um, allocation of 5%, I struggle with that too,
and I can easily echo what my colleagues have said so far. Um, and I have been reflecting on some of the promises that I've made to my constituents, and one of the priorities in both of the campaigns has been ensuring that we are offering competitive salaries so that we can attract and retain the best educators. And I have been so excited by the progress that we've made with the collective bargaining, um, agreement and, uh, look forward to having that continue
to support this effort. But it, it does have me wondering, and I just, in terms of the specific carve out here, if you could give me a little bit more context in terms of how this could impact hiring and retaining principals, assistant principals and deans, if we were, um, to, to make this motion part of the budget. Thank you Chair Chandler. I'll, I'll do my best without knowing. Uh, I would say that while, um, it is easy
to say this is a one time adjustment that the board will make moving forward, um, I think when you are setting up for, uh, recruiting, um, for those positions, there is going to be, um, at a historical look back at the way that we have addressed or handled compensation. And internally our staff will see that taking on those roles does not necessarily equate to,
uh, more pay or the same level of increase. Uh, so while a one time change from four to per or from 5% to 4% may not have a significant impact right now, there's no way of knowing if that were to continue, um, into the future. Is that help? Yes. Uh, as a a follow up question, are there any challenges at this current time in terms of hiring for these positions? There are challenges, uh, for hiring principal positions?
Yes. Okay. Um, thank you school board members. Any further discussion? Um, Mr. Sen, Uh, thank you Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to highlight that, just thank again, Ms. Boland and Ms. Willoughby for, for working with me. I understand that, um, when there's, uh, one salary scale cut, creating this cutoff was a challenge, and I appreciate y'all taking a look. And I think that where we arrived on level 21 makes a lot of sense for this year because that supervisor on up,
and I just don't think it's tenable for, uh, you know, I don't think principals, assistant principals, deans, yes, they're on that different, uh, salary scale there on B, but, you know, they're in the schools every day working with teachers in the same building as the teachers. And the fact that you would have folks in that building who are getting the 4%, uh, cost of living adjustment, um, reporting to folks who are getting the 5% who make a higher salary already, I, I don't think that is the right thing to do at this time. Um, and I understand the,
the concerns we've discussed about the wage compression if we were to do this over time. So perhaps there is a discussion to be had this year about how we approach that going forward, if there's this differentiation in the future. Um, but I will note that for the next, uh, couple years of the collective bargain agreement, that doesn't look to be, uh, the issue, uh, in the next several years. So, um, I, I do think this is a, um, at least for me, uh, a unique, um, situation that we're in and, and why I think it's appropriate, uh, at this time. Thank you, Ms. LaBelle.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, also thank you to Mr. SSON for looking this up. Um, I was worried because of the charges for the, the credit cards, and this would solve the problem. This would also help with our school nutrition fund. It's not like we are not giving a cola to our administrators from level 21 up. It's just not as big. And I think that everybody could agree that it wouldn't be fair to give them a 5% and the teachers of 4% as a teacher,
I would've objected mightily. Thank you very much. So thank you Mr. Sp Thank you, Mr. Cardi. Thank you. Um, I, I really appreciate this. So I was doing my own digging and looking at a, at a different, um, similar but different thing about COLA and, and diving into this. And I really do appreciate, uh, Ms. Boland and MS will be your time in, in really digging into this and answering a plethora of questions on both of our different approaches to this. Um, I'm going to, uh, shockingly gonna take a little bit of different, um, approach on this one
because I think as I started diving into this issue, it's raised, uh, more questions than given answers as far as what the right direction is for this. And, you know, again, not having been privy to the negotiations, I'm gonna honor the fact that there were negotiations. They took a long time to get there. And, um, I think I'm gonna honor, honor that. But I will tell you, and I'm gonna, and I share, um, Ms. Shern off's concern that, um, there's a lot more to uncover in, in this question and, and the, um, the ramifications
that this could possibly create. Um, and in addition, it's also raised a lot more questions again, about the whole processes, you know, as the budget as a whole, um, and how we're going about this process and the transparency or lack of transparency in some aspects of the budget process. And so, um, I decided to back off from my, my cola um, exploration right now because I have a million more questions to ask, and I'm just really concerned that if we go down this path where we've uncovered a little bit, but I, I think there's an iceberg under here that,
and I'm concerned about what might happen if we do this and the cultural ramifications that it may have within, um, staff. So at this point in time, I'm gonna just stay away from the cola um, motions at this point because I'm just really concerned that it has much bigger ramifications than we've even explored. Thank you, Mr. Stinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to highlight something that Ms. LeBel pointed out that, um, you know, I'm very happy that the principals, assistant principals, deans, uh,
supervisors that are level 21 and above are getting, uh, an increase, uh, a 4% increase, which is on par with the teachers. And I think, you know, as Ms. Chandler said, uh, as Chair Chandler said that it's really important that we are recruiting and retaining the best educators. We're compensating appropriately. Um, and I think that we would wanna look over time, you know, in terms of the COLA increase, if that's helping us attract and retain, uh, our, our educators. But I think that for this year, having a 4% increase, um,
is, is a good increase. Um, and so, uh, the idea that going from five to four is causing, um, major morale issue. Um, I I'm not sure that that's gonna happen this year. Uh, if it were to over time be the case that our administrators in the schools were getting, uh, shortchanged, um, I would understand a morale concern. I would understand, um, the, the issues with recruiting and retaining them, but I, I don't understand, uh, and don't, don't understand how
for the one year that this would happen. Um, at least right now, the from getting a 4%, uh, increase is, is a negative thing. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further discussion, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote. Uh, clerk, please open the vote. Board members, please record your vote. School Board members, please close and display the vote. I'm sorry, clerk, please close and display the vote. Okay. So, um, the motion
passes with five school board members voting yes, including Mr. Fon, vice Chair, Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rashid, and Ms. LaBelle, and three school board members. Voting no, including Ms. Riccardi, Ms. Shernoff, and myself. And, uh, one school board member abstaining Mrs. Griffith. Um, with that, are there any further amendments to the base motion as previously amended? Mr. Pepper? I move to amend the budget by having LCPS continue paying credit card transaction fees for the school nutrition program, incurring a cost
of $1,500,000 in the school nutrition fund. Okay. Um, we have a motion by Mr. Pepper. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Dr. Rasheed, given that this motion is a new motion and we don't have anything in writing, I'm gonna call a brief recess for five minutes so that we Oh, you're good? Yes, I have it. Okay, that's great. Um, so we have it on the board. Great. Um, with that, we have, um,
we have a motion by Mr. Pepper, seconded by Dr. Rasheed and Mr. Pepper, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I, I did have to wait for that motion because I had to see how Mr. Smithson's motion kind of went through because it's a fun domino game we have out here. Um, I know that, uh, we talked about the credit card fees a lot when we were doing all the budget presentations. And the one that gave myself, and it appeared to give most of the rest of us heartburn, was the link fee, um, which is the school nutrition fee. Uh, the fact that it is a $2 and 60 cent per transaction fee, um,
really impacts our families who are, you know, probably living paycheck to paycheck or right above that line as they go to deposit money into their accounts. They can't make those deposits, you know, the large deposit to occur, the fee one time. And it, for me, I know I wouldn't trust an elementary schooler to bring $20 to the cafeteria person every time. And I know there are other methods of payment, but this is a fee that is probably more than any other going to hurt our families in the county. Um, and now that we have a little bit more in the School Nutrition Fund to balance this out,
I firmly believe that this is something that we can do. So we're not trying to balance the budget on the backs of our families. Thank you. School board members, is there any discussion? Um, Ms. LaBelle? Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to, uh, echo sort of what Mr. Pepper was saying. Many of our, um, families have jobs that do not get paid in large lump sums once a month or twice a month. Many of them get paid once a week, and to take that amount of money out to feed their children
to pay credit card debt is very difficult for them. So I think that this would alleviate a lot of their problems if we did this. Thank you. Thank you Dr. Rasheed. Thank you, chair Chandler. I echo my colleague sentiments. Thank you Mr. Pepper, for bringing this forward. Um, I, I think, uh, kids carrying cash is not really realistic anymore. I know once upon a time it would've been. So these, these transaction feeds definitely have to be removed. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Mrs. Griffith? Thank you Madam Chair. Um, just to clarify, uh, per Mr.
Smithson's, uh, amendment, um, I thought you mentioned, uh, credit card fees in there. Can you, um, can you tell me how the two might relate? Thanks. Thank you, Mrs. Griffith. So my amendment moved, um, funds that the savings that the amendment generated in the operating fund to the school nutrition fund. So now those funds are available in school nutrition fund for things like, uh, Mr. Pepper's amendment on, on credit card fees. Any further questions? Um, yes. Vice Chair Donahue. Thank you Madam Chair. I was just going to ask if we can
zoom out on the tally board to see where we are. Idea. Madam Chair, may I Yes. Address the board? If I could orient you to the tote board a little bit, because we have, um, included motions that impact other funds. Usually our budget adoption activity is, is really focused on the school operating fund. So you will notice along the bottom there are additional tabs. And so depending on where we're, what motion we're talking about and which fund it impacts, um, is what is being displayed.
So right now, the budget team has displayed the school nutrition tab, and you can see that there has been 1.5 million, the emotion that's on the table right now to increase expenses to, um, the school nutrition fund. There is a tally, um, along the bottom, but basically showing how the fund balance would, um, would be impacted what also needs to be put on here. That is not yet though is the motion that just passed, that transferred the savings from the school, from the school operating fund onto this.
Is it on here? Oh, there it is. I'm sorry. I wasn't, I didn't look far enough to the right. So then you can see how on the far right there is the, the transfer in from the school operating fund. And I'll just take this moment to highlight that this is setting a new precedent. Um, the school nutrition fund is set up as a special revenue fund, meaning it is established to, um, generate revenues to cover its expenses. And so the school board has now just taken action, um, recognizing that this will now become a subsidized operation. So I just wanna make sure the school board is very clear on that. Um, the fund balance.
What, what is also a little different here is that there is an existing fund balance. This was not a fund that was projected to go negative this year or next year at this, at the current rate. Um, as we presented during the school nutrition, um, budget presentation, there were multiple initiatives. Um, some impacting the budget, some just impacting operations where we are trying to make the, um, the necessary adjustments to right size the fund and have it become breakeven, if not slightly profitable. Right now. It continues to be a net loss. The motions that have been, that have been made
by transferring in the $1.2 million is not sufficient to cover the 1.5 million removal of the credit card fees if that was to pass. So this is really just looking at those two actions. The operations of this fund will continue to show that there will be a net loss or, um, a net loss of the operation, and there will still be a drawdown of the fund balance, as I have shared. Um, at some point if we're not successful in making corrections or if there's not additional support at the state or federal level, that then we could be looking at,
um, needing to subsidize this operation and or having discussions with the county. So I just wanna put all that on the table in terms of just, um, advising the board what is happening with this fund and that, um, again, we are setting a new precedent and beginning to subsidize when this fund is not, um, in jeopardy at this current moment. And so hopefully, so that's the background. And then you can see the tote board related to the school nutrition fund. Thank you. Um, vice Chair Donahue. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for Ms. Willoughby for giving us that context.
Um, I have to say I'm very conflicted about this proposal. I had, as, as many of of my colleagues up here had some significant concerns with the idea of, uh, of, of LCPS moving to the cost of those fees onto our families. But that being said, I also have some concerns about trying to address that issue in this way. At this time, I am also sensitive to the fact
that there are a number of families in our communities who, because of the type of jobs that they work or the income that they receive, that the, the link fees per transaction pose a significant hardship for, for some families. I am concerned because I don't, I don't feel comfortable that we have enough knowledge or that I have enough knowledge right now to look at. Um, you know, is it the percentage of families who are incurring those fees? Is it mostly families for whom this makes a substantial hardship
or are the families for whom this is a substantial hardship, only a small amount of this, of these credit card fees? Um, that's more information that I would like to have. I would also like the opportunity to explore other solutions as we discussed previously. For example, if there is a, a way a vendor that offers, um, payment platforms through PayPal, Zelle, or other, um, you know, or other venues besides cash check or these link payments with credit card fees.
Um, I, again, I don't, I don't feel, I don't feel comfortable supporting this amendment at this time because I, I would like more time to do what I feel is the necessary due diligence to be comfortable with coming to a conclusion that this is the best solution. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting it tonight. Mrs. Griffith. Um, I echo, uh, Ms. Donna you's comments because we really don't know in that number, um, who really needs us to, um, divert the fees.
So, um, I too will be voting against it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vincent. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to pick up on something that Vice Chair Donahue had stated that I, I, uh, hope that in this course of this year, as I understand the link contract runs for a little bit longer, that we can be exploring options to address the high credit card fees, uh, that link is charging. Um, I thought that the, the, the a CH, uh, option that was presented is one, a great, uh, solution, uh,
for helping alleviate that. But I think there's more that we can hopefully do together over the next year to, um, see how we can make a, a long-term, uh, to create a long-term solution for the fees that that link is creating. But I see this as a, as a helpful measure this year so that we're not imposing this burden on our families this year while there are efforts underway to, um, uh, address the, the link issue. Thank you. Um, for myself, I would just like to say, um, I, it's, it's very easy
to recognize that this has been an incredibly challenging year for many people in our community, and we certainly have seen, um, an ex existential demand. We've seen applications for, uh, free and reduced, uh, lunch up, I believe 180%. Um, I, I think there is a, a good reason to be asking these questions and, and I would like to ask staff as a follow up. Um, this is an unprecedented allocation, but does it com commit it?
I believe it does not commit us to this allocation in the future. Is that correct? We are looking at this solely for FY 27. That's very helpful clarification. Um, and then is the, the numbers that I cited for the, um, increased demand for free and reduced lunch, was that close to accurate? I think it was like 180% increase This year. It was substantial increases. I, I honestly can't recall off the top of my head, but, um, I'm sure your memory's probably better than mine. It was substantial. It was, um, and it was part of a, an ongoing trend that we have seen over the last couple of years. Thank you for that clarification. Mm-hmm.
Thank you. Um, Mr. Pepper. Thank you Madam Chair. And kind of echoing off what you had just said about free reduced, the other thing that we've also seen in the nutrition fund is, um, more lunch debt, right? Which is, which is indicative already of our families, um, having a more difficult time paying, um, for lunches. And so if you put this two 60 fee on top of, of everything else, it's just yet another burden on the families, and it does buy us a year without putting that burden on our families to explore options for, for payment in a different way. I'm just gonna put that
Out there. Dr. Rasheed. Thank you, chair. I'm, I may be a little late in the, in the game, but, um, I thought that Mr. Swenson's amendment to reduce the cola from, to reduce the cola to 4% from 5%, um, I thought that caused a reallocation of the money that would offset and help Mr. Pepper's amendment. And I heard an explanation, but I, I maybe I just don't understand if someone can clarify. Ms. Willoughby, could you help us with that, please? Sure. Um, it may be if Mr. Pepper's amendment had went first, it may have flowed
to help, um, the clarity. Um, so let's assume that Mr. Pepper's amendment did go first and, and it approves now we have incurred additional expense in the school nutrition fund. Um, Mr. Spencer's motion, his intent and anticipation of this motion was to generate savings from reduction of the cola and then to essentially spend those savings by transferring it out to the school nutrition fund. So on the tote board for the operating fund, it becomes a net to zero. So while we, we generated about 1.2 million of savings,
it immediately goes out the door as a transfer out, which is categorized as an expense. So we're spending it to send it out the door. Um, and so on the tote board for the school nutrition or for the school operating fund, it nets to zero. Does that help clarify? Thank you, Mr. Mr. Enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I wanted to ask a question about, I know we don't know what the state funds are going to, what's gonna happen at the state, but there are some things happening and, and moving forward at the state level that could impact our nutrition fund.
So my question really isn't about having a crystal ball and understanding what that's gonna do, but should we get enough funds from the state if that were to happen, would it be possible to then make a decision to reverse this? If we were to say like, we have credit card, we're gonna, so the vote goes through that we are gonna still, that families are gonna pay the fee, but then we get the money from the state, could we then go back and reconcile and say, we do not want this falling on the backs of our families and we're gonna change it now?
Or is it done as of tonight with the budget process? That's a great question. Um, we're only done tonight generally with budget, depending what, what the county, how, what actions the county takes. However, because the state budget is not finalized, anything could happen. We could actually, um, even see perhaps a reduction in our state revenue, which would, we would need to revisit. Um, I also am very cautiously optimistic and I have no data. It's more of just a maybe wishful thinking
that we may have some additional funds come our way from the state if that were were to occur, then one, we would, um, apprise the board of what the update is of what has happened at the state level that would happen regardless of whatever decisions are being made with the school nutrition fund. We keep you updated of what is happening at the state budget level and its impact to LCPS. If we were to generate or be allocated additional funding. To answer your question, the board could absolutely revisit, um, this decision so long as, um, you know, really before the before school starts, you know,
before the, you know, fiscal year, we would want to, um, you know, make sure we have ample time to, you know, let our families know what, what, what they are facing the state budget, if they follow their, their typical timeline. Um, hopefully we would know by May. Um, but there have been situations where, um, you know, the state budget has been delayed, you know, into July. I, again, I'm hopeful that that's not the case this year. One last caveat to advise the board is that ultimately though the appropriation to the LCPS resides on the County Board of supervisors,
meaning if we were to receive additional funding, and I'm just gonna pick, let's, let's pretend we get $2 million of additional from the additional funding from the state. Um, I would be bringing forward an action for the school board to do a supplemental request to increase the budget by $2 million by recognizing the additional $2 million from the state that needs to go to the county. That's the normal process. The county could then grant us that and increase our budget and recognize the state funding, and then the school board is able to do what, what they wish with that $2 million of funding.
The, the county could also though look at that $2 million and choose to take action to reduce their allotment to LCPS. So if their final budget, um, is consistent with their guidance and they adopt at a $105 million level, they could, um, look to reduce that 1 0 5 by $2 million. Um, there have been precedent, depending on various situations where that has occurred, where the state has allocated additional funding to LCPS and LCPS has not received, um, those dollars
as additional dollars. Again, there's a lot of, you know, different context to those situations. So I just wanna put all, you know, the caveats out there of what we could be looking at, because this budget that Dr. Spence has presented is in line with the county guidance of meeting their, um, guidance. We're not asking for a dollar more, um, based on his C on I am, I'm hopeful that for Monday's presentation to the county board of supervisors, we could share this information that if this motion was to go through to do the $1.5 million for LCPS two, um,
at this point, um, continue to pay that fee on behalf of families, that if there were additional funding coming from the state, we would be coming back to the county and we would ask them to let us, you know, retain the, that funding to offset this charge. Um, that is a strategy we could, you know, absolutely, you know, take for Monday. Um, and I, again, with us coming in at guidance, I think, I think the odds are in our favor that it would be, um, supported. Thank you. Seeing, oh, yes. Vice Chair Donahue. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I have another question
for likely for Ms. Willoughby. So since we've already voted on Mr. Spence's amendment, that does put additional funds into the school nutrition fund, if Mr. Pepper's amendment were to not pass, and if we get the amount of money from the county that we are asking them for, what would the funds that have now been determined to be moved into the School Nutrition Fund be used for? So right now, the budget as presented in the CO was,
if you looked at the total revenues compared to the total expenditures, it was showing a net loss of, I believe, about $5 million, give or take. Um, the, where we were coming up with the additional funds to cover the, those, um, expenses was the fund balance. So if, because we've already, the school board has already voted to transfer 1.2 million in it is just going to provide, it's going to, um, narrow that funding gap. So instead of a $5 million net loss, now it's only gonna be,
um, you know, what, 3.8 million net loss. So it will just help to cover ongoing operations. Thank you. School board members. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Electronic Vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members, please record your vote Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes with seven school board members voting yes, including Ms. Riccardi, Mr. Fon, Ms. Shernoff, myself, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rashid, and Ms. LaBelle and two school board members, voting no,
including Vice Chair Donahue and Mrs. Griffiths. With that, are there any other amendments to, to the base motion as previously amended? Uh, Ms. Riccardi, Thank you. I move to amend the budget by not increasing school meal prices by 20 cents per meal for school year 20 26, 20 27, thus reducing revenue in the School Nutrition fund by an estimated 700,000. Thank you. Um, a motion has been made by Ms. Riccardi. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Um, Ms. Riccardi, would you like to, um, speak to your motion?
Yes, I would. Thank you so much. You know, while the 20 cent per meal may appear somewhat, um, minimal for some families, I think in, in my district in particular, it's, it can really impact home budgets, um, pretty significantly. And along with the credit card fees, um, that we've reduced, I think, um, putting a hold on the meal increases at this point in time is a, a smart move for us. Um, it really does make a big difference for our lower income and paid meal families. And as you had mentioned earlier, we've seen an 180% surge in free
and reduced meal applications this year, and we've also seen, um, a significant rise in our unpaid meal debt. So I think by increasing that, we're just, I think we're just gonna create more problems for ourselves and I think it's a really good thing for our fa our our most at risk families. So, um, with that, I would like to, uh, support them in not increasing meal costs this year. Thank you. Um, the motion was made by Ms. Riccardi and seconded by Ms. S Shernoff school board members. Um, is there any discussion? Alright, seeing no discussion,
we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote Clerk, thank you for opening the Vote School Board members, please record your vote. Uh, clerk please close and display the vote. That motion passes with eight school board members voting yes, including Mr. Riccardi, Mr. Fon, Ms. Shernoff, myself, Mrs. Griffiths, um, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rashid and Ms. LaBelle and one school board member voting No. Vice Chair Donahue. Alright, let's see. Is there another amendment to the base
motion as previously amended? Um, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank You, Madam Chair. Um, I move to amend the budget by removing the sustainability specialist from the budget for 196,000 um, dollars. Thank You. Um, Mrs. Griffith has made an amendment. Uh, is there a second? Second. Thank you. Um, the amendment has been seconded by Ms. Shernoff. Uh, Mrs. Griffiths, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this proposed specialist cost 196,000 a year.
I would like to see, I, I felt like from the presentation, uh, we were cutting custodians, um, to hire this specialist. I would like to see more custodians, new sports programs that have been requested. Uh, we were shown all this information. Um, as far as the pre presentation on sustainability, uh, Mr. Lewis had also pointed out that we received a 2.2 million check back for sustainability initiatives here at LCPS. Take note, the money was already, has already gone to the L-C-P-S-O, uh, operating fund,
not back into renovations for our schools. We spent over 30 million on sustainability initiatives that will not bring us a return for about 21 years or so. I have said in the past that our constituents and taxpayers are looking for the present and not how this helps our students, uh, achieve in the present. Um, getting the 196,000 back may also help in some of the programs we put through today. Uh, some of the, um, other thing amendments that we have done today per Ms. Shernoff. So, um, that's why I would like to amend the budget.
Thank you. Thank You. Um, is there any discussion on Mrs. Griffith's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Uh, ms. Sure enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to clarify that my first motion on one time funds did cover all of my amendments, so I had the money to cover them all. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Mr. Vincent? Um, thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak to the, um, the importance of the sustainability specialist. Um, because, uh, the, the office is currently an office of one person, um,
and working, uh, not only to expand, um, environmental teaching, outdoor learning, experiential learning in our classrooms, meaning partnering with teachers in all of our schools, helping develop curriculum, uh, building programs at the schools, um, that's focused on the, the student piece of the sustainability work. The office also works with our, uh, support services team to, uh, help manage our fleet in an energy efficient way to work, uh, with facilities to make sure our buildings are energy efficient.
And this is, this, uh, saves the taxpayer money in the end because we are saving money, um, by making our buildings and our fleet energy efficient. Um, so I just wanted to say that this, this role is allowing that, that office to, to do more and in doing so, actually work, uh, for the taxpayer of Loudoun County, um, and, and save money in the long run. Thank you Mrs. Griffith. Um, I to add to that, um, I believe the people of Loudoun County are looking for solutions now in the present and not 21 years from now when their kids are out of the schools.
Um, I just wanted to add that back. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? I'm seeing none. Um, let's move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members, please record your vote. Thank you Clerk for displaying the vote. The motion fails with seven school board members. Voting no, including Ms. Riccardi. Mr. Fon, Ms. Shernoff, myself, vice Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper and Dr. Rashid. Um, one member voting, yes, Mrs. Griffith
and one member abstaining. Ms. LaBelle. Um, thank you. Are there any further amendments to the base motion as previously amended? Mrs. Griffith? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I move to amend the budget by suspending adopted staffing standards for FY 27 and removing ongoing and new investments as a, as proposed in the FY 27 C on funding compensation for collective bargaining for the collective bargaining agreement in the 20% health premium increase resulting in savings of 23,000 800 9180,
and a reduction of new 98.2 FTEs. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Mrs. Griffith. Is there a second? Second. Oh, just for, I'm sorry. Um, yes, Dr. Spence. Sorry, Just for clarity, I know it, it's up there, but because it was the public may be listening and not being able to see all that precisely, that, that is a proposed savings of 23,890,000, not 23,000. What did I say? 23,000. Oh, sorry. That's Okay. Thank
you for catching that clarification. Second, thank you. Um, we have a second by Ms. Shernoff. Um, Mrs. Griffiths, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, per this amendment, I'm speaking to the people of Loudoun County. This budget is supposed to be about prioritizing. Since I have been on the school board, we have been increasing the budget every year. This cion should have been about cutting spending and providing areas where we can cut not to keep adding programs and investments. Not to keep controversial departments like DEI with a hold on, new schools and opening
and now low enrollment. We had 20 days to review a 2.6 billion budget. I have, I have big problems with the process and I feel like there was no intention of really working with the board. School board members have to go into the weeds and, uh, move items around when the administration should be given the school board plans with or without investments to compare. Assuming LCPS didn't get an additional 100 million, uh, what would the budget look like? Uh, we are responsible for cutting. If programs are not cut, then I feel like we are just throwing money
around to see what sticks. If cola's, uh, step increases in health benefits are the priority for all staff, then the administration needs to make cuts in areas of the budgets that are lower in priority that is already set. Um, no different than how a family would manage a household budget. It looks like we're adding 25 assistant principals at 4 million and cutting classroom teachers 8.3 million when we should be having more teachers in smaller class sizes when hiring staff. It should be a case by case basis
of needs not wants hiring teachers to sat satisfy more classes should be a need. We were elected by the taxpayer and we must be fiscally responsible for the people in our districts and the people of Loudoun County. We have an obligation to the whole county to keep things reasonable. At the same time, we need to support our students and staff. We can do that with the current FY 26 budget. With that, I am asking that we keep the costs that we already set, uh, that were already set, which is collective bargaining, and that 20% for the, uh, insurance needs. Uh, we are looking to, uh, tax increases for the county.
I'm requesting that the budget holds FY 27 expenditures at FY 26 levels. This is not a request to decline funding, repeal policies, or halt operations in any way. I will not vote to raise the budget every single year. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any discussion on Mrs. Griffith's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Mr. Pepper? So the FY 27 budget does propose an almost $105 million increase, but it's really important to understand what that number actually represents, right? So roughly 93 million, about 90% of that increase.
It's for salaries, it's for benefits, it's for required sustainment, including things like health insurance increases and other contractual obligations that we have, right? This is not new programming. Really what it is, is it's the cost of keeping our current workforce in place. So what this budget really is about is it's really about keeping our school system stable and not expanding it. Once you remove salaries and basic sustainment, only about 3.7% of the budget is even negotiable. So that means that, well, more than nine out of every $10 is just about maintaining services and not expanding them.
Additionally, the new proposals, 79% of the new positions we're asking for, they're in special education, English Learner Services, behavior supports, and safety. So if the reductions are required, which they're not, we as a board just had a very limited scope and, and limited choices, and we had to look at the timing and the scope. And we're not looking at positions that directly impact our students. Our goal as a board is to protect students and protect our staff about being realistic about what our county can sustain long term. So this budget really is not about doing more, right? It's about not falling behind.
And we work carefully together, right? And we're working on this to make adjustments carefully. We're working on to make it transparently, but most importantly, we're doing this to keep our students at the center. And so for that reason, I cannot support this. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote Clerk, please open the vote Board members please record your vote Clerk. Oh, sorry. I'll wait. Thank you. No, you're great.
Um, clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion fails with eight school board members. Voting no, including Ms. Riccardi. Mr. Vincent, Ms. Shernoff, myself, Vice-Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rashid, and Ms. LaBelle And one school board member voting? Yes. Mrs. Griffiths. Um, are there any further motions or are there any further amendments to the base motion as previously amended? Wow. Good work. Everybody. Um, I've done Yet. I know. One more, one more. Um, Uh, Madam Chair? Yes, ma'am. So we are outta balance
for the operating fund, okay? We have $413,808 available to allocate at this point, since the school board has already did the unprecedented move of transferring to the school nutrition fund, I would recommend a motion. Um, and it's available. Um, I think we've number of 15 to, um, allocate that to the school nutrition fund so that the school nutrition, so that our operating fund is balanced. Thank you for that suggestion. I'm Vice Chair Donahue. Thank you Madam Chair. I move
that we further amend the budget by moving the, what was the amount, Ms. Willoughby 413,808, The $413,808 from the General Operating Fund to the School Nutrition Fund to help cover operational costs. All right. Um, I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by, um, vice Chair Donahue. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Pe.
I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Um, vice Chair Donahue, would you like to speak to your motion? Nope. Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on, um, vice Chair Donahue's Amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Um, Mr. Pepper? The only question probably is from Ms. Willoughby. Um, I know that we also, um, right now are, are curious about stating our self insurance fund. Uh, would that be an option or not at all? This time, The House self insurance fund is set up a little differently. Um, and there's appropriation resolution where the county has limited our ability
to transfer into that separately. All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote. Uh, clerk, please open the vote. Board members, please record your vote Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all nine school board members present. Okay, so we have one final motion and I will make that motion tonight. Um, I move to adopt the fiscal year 27 superintendent's estimate of needs. Oh wait, miss our vice chair Donahue made
that motion at the very beginning of the meeting and it was seconded, um, by Mr. Fon. So we have a motion by Vice Chair Donahue to adopt the fiscal year 27 superintendent's estimate of needs and the fiscal year 27 budget resolution as amended, which was seconded by Mr. Fon. Is there any further discussion? Um, yes. Ms. McCarty? Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, our families across Loudoun work really hard for their money, and we owe that, owe it to them to spend it wisely.
That's why I take our fiduciary responsibility very seriously. And after a thorough review, I am unable to support our current budget proposal due to the insufficient transparency on key assumptions and certain line items and underlying projections. Full disclosure is essential for prudent stewardship and for making informed decisions that truly serve our taxpayers and our students. And I remain committed to championing the full, fully transparent and accountable oversight process, not just for this budget, but for the entire budgeting process moving forward.
Greater clarity would enable us all to evaluate proposals with the rigor our community deserves. This process is very similar to giving your teenager $200 and a grocery list to go to a store, but when they get home, all you get to see is what is in the top of the bags. And you don't get to dig into the bag to see what's there or even see the receipt that you're actually, that you actually paid for. You only have the surface idea of what was really purchased. And that's exactly the best analogy I can lay out for you. I should add that I don't blame the staff in any of this process. This has been the way it has been here in
Ladin County for years. But with all the impending, uh, flattening of the data center revenues that are coming over the next couple of years, at some point we have got to start being really financially responsible and we have to do budgeting differently in order to meet those long-term needs. If we don't start now by digging in and really understanding what we're actually approving in the next couple of years, when those, when the the numbers flatten out, we're gonna be stuck making very, very hard decisions, and they're going to avalanche on us very quickly. I'm open to revisions and other in the,
and renewing the process and looking at the process again, but at this point in time with just having gone through this process, I can't support the budget on principle. Thank you. Thank You Mrs. Griffith. Thank you Madam Chair. And, and with that, um, I did mention that when we do the budget from now on, um, we should have comparisons. We should have, uh, the budget without the additional funds, and we should have the budget, uh, with, uh, just to see where, just to compare, just to compare all the items in the budget itemized.
And I think that was part of the problem this time, so I just wanted to point that out. And I'm hoping we can discuss that at our retreat, um, and see about having that for, uh, budget talks in the future. Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Pepper. So I just wanna say that, that I have strong confidence actually in our school administrators and our professional staff. They're, they're trained, they're credentialed. They're, they're committed to serving students with both integrity and professionalism. And so, while thoughtful oversight
and accountability are important, and we can look at the budget process going forward, I just wanna mention that any measure that undermines trust is doing a chance. It risks harm, it risks harm to morale, collaboration. And, and at the end of the day, ultimately student success. So I'm also saying this from a position of someone who literally put his foot in his mouth on like one of his first days on the dais. Um, it's not from blindly loyalty at all, but it's also from experience. You know, every one of us has issues that we're, we're passionate about. I think you can all figure out what mine was.
Um, but, um, and I, I challenged the actions, not because I knew what I was talking about, just because I was just like so darn passionate. I challenged the actions of a staff member without really fully understanding the work or the standards that guided them. And, and, you know, I've had time to reflect on this, and I know my concern was really not at the staff member, but it may have come across misplaced and may have, you know, upset people that were acting professionally and inappropriately. And so what that experience did was it reinforced in me how easily it is to erode trust and how important it is to approach concerns with humility
and context and respect for professional expertise. And so for these reasons, I, I wanna just say I support our administrations and staff. I support the budget process that we've done, and it is okay to, to look at revisions, but our focus right now as a board should be on strengthening trust and collaboration and, and not weakening it. And that's all I'm gonna say. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing no discussion, let's move forward. To approve the base motion as previously amended by electronic vote clerk, please open the vote. Board members, please record your
vote Clerk. Oh, sorry. Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes with seven school board members, voting yes, including Mr. Fon, Ms. Shernoff, myself, vice Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rasheed, and Ms. LaBelle and two school board members. Voting no, including Ms. Riccardi and Mrs. Griffith. With that, we have concluded our business this evening and we will move on to adjournment, um, seeing as there's no more business.
The February 3rd, 2026, Loudoun County School Board meeting for the fiscal year 27 operating budget, budget adoption, and is now adjourned. Um, please drive home safely.