Good afternoon. Call to order the June 24th, 2026 Legislative and Policy Committee meeting. My name is Ross Swenson. I'm Chair of the committee, and welcome everybody here today. Sign up to make in-person public comments occurred prior to the start of the committee meeting. The meeting will be audio recorded and posted on BoardDocs. I'm not aware of any sign-ups today. Is that right for public comment? Seeing none, we will move to next item on our agenda. I have been notified that Dr. Samira Rasheed would like to remotely participate in tonight's meeting. Dr.
Rasheed, could you please state your location and whether this is a medical or personal matter? Yes. Thank you, Chair Swenson. I am located in Birmingham, Alabama, and this is a personal matter. Thank you, Dr. Rasheed. And this will be your first remote participation for this calendar year in a Legislative and Policy Committee meeting using a personal exemption. Is that right? That is correct. Thank you. And is there anyone at your location with you? No, not in this room. I'm completely alone. All right. Thank you. I will now entertain a motion that Dr. Rasheed's request to participate remotely be granted. Second. Are you moving, making the motion? Oh, I apologize. I move that Ms. Samira Rasheed
can participate remotely. Thank you. Thank you. I'll second that motion. Now we'll move to the vote. All in favor of granting Dr. Rasheed's request to participate remotely, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? So seeing that ayes are voted two to zero to approve this request to participate remotely, and no school board members opposing, we will welcome Dr. Rasheed to the meeting. Welcome, Dr. Rasheed. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now we will move on to item 3.01, the draft minutes for the
May 13th, 2026 Legislative and Policy Committee meeting. Have the board members had time to look over the minutes? Are any changes- Yes ... to the minutes? No. All right. I'll now entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the May 13th, 2026 committee meeting. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the minutes of the May 13th, 2026 Legislative Policy Committee meeting as written. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Is there a second? Second. It has been properly moved and seconded to approve the meeting minutes. All those in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye.
Aye. Aye. The motion passes, three to zero, with all school board members present voting in favor. With that, we will now move on to item 4.01, Policy 2420, Meeting Procedures, which I believe will be presented by Mr. Allen, division counsel. No. Mr. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, colleagues, guests, thank you. The proposed changes to Policy 2420 are returning to the committee today for action, having been previously shared with the committee as information at your last meeting on
May 13th, As was shared at the previous meeting, while the changes in the redline version appear to be extensive, the updates to this policy are almost entirely structural to match the VSBA model policy and to ensure consistency with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The proposed changes to the policy were shared with the advisory committees of the school board and the general public, and I'll be reviewing a comment received from members of the Equity Council, as well as feedback received from the MSAC
committee, both of which have been uploaded to BoardDocs. The comment from a member of the Equity Council was there should be a medical provision for virtual participation when quorum is not physically assembled as long as it is not abused with parameters. While the administration certainly appreciates the sentiments of this feedback, it would be a violation of Virginia Code for the school board to meet virtually except during a state of emergency. The MSAC committee has suggested just one minor revision on page six of the redline version in paragraph F
concerning public participation. The suggested revision is to replace the word citizens with community members to align with the language found in Policy 2520, Participation by the Public. With this minor edit, the policy would now say community members are encouraged to attend meetings of the school board and to communicate their views to the board at times provided for public comment. Spontaneous discussion from community members during other times shall not be permitted. That's the
rub right there. This concludes the administration's review for this action item. Unless there are any questions or any other suggested revisions, the administration would like to recommend that the committee consider the proposed changes as suggested by MSAC to replace citizens with community members at line 225 and line 227. And with that, if you have any other comments or you want to add something to that, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. In looking at Policy 2520, alternative considerations for this committee could include in accordance with Policy 2520,
members of the public or subject to the Language in Policy 2520 members of the public rather than community members, but I offer that for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I'll open up to questions from my colleagues. Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. So from what I see from the MSAC comments, can you clarify, we're removing US citizens and just making it citizens and community members? We're taking out US citizens. Is that what you're saying? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths.
I believe in looking at the MSAC comments, their concern was that the use of quote "citizens" end quote was not clear. It doesn't currently specify whether it's US citizens or Loudoun County citizens or residents, but the current policy as written just says citizens broadly. Well, in the comments I have here, it says the use of citizens is not clear. Is this referring to US citizens, Loudoun County residents, or something else? So, correct, US citizens is not listed here, but I'm not sure why we would not have it listed here,
why we wouldn't have US citizens, and why we would just have citizens and community members. Can you clarify that for me? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. I don't believe I was here when the prior iteration of this policy was reviewed, or at least with respect to the language, with respect to the word citizens, so I can't offer clarity in response to your inquiry in that regard. Thank you. Go ahead. I have more questions, but go ahead. Yeah, so I'll offer this. I agree with MSAC that the word citizens here is a little unclear because I think Mr.
Allen referenced the other policy that governs who has the eligibility to make public comments, which maybe Mr. Allen, if you could specify who under that policy is able to make public comments at school board meetings. So it might be helpful just to, as you suggested, Mr. Allen, make an amendment that references that policy so that it's consistent across the policies. Yes. Thank you, Chair Svenson. In Policy 2520A5, that provides for the eligibility of members of the community,
sorry, A4, of members of the public who are eligible to address the school board and public comments. So that includes residents of Loudoun County, including incorporated towns within, i.e., Leesburg. Businesses located in whole or in part in Loudoun County, Loudoun County taxpayers, current or former LCPS students, parents and guardians of LCPS students that live outside of Loudoun County, LCPS employees and retirees or representatives of organizations serving LCPS employees and students. Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. It was just a comment in MSAC. I'm not sure that
it's in the policy that it said US citizens. I'm not even sure about that. I don't recall seeing it, but just a question, when would we ever check citizenship? Why would it be in here? Why was that even a comment? Do we check citizenship for people to come and speak at our meetings? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. To the latter question you raised, my understanding or perspective is that the school board who adopted this policy previously was using the word citizens in the generic kind of broader,
like members of the public or citizens. I don't recall, at least when it was looked at in 2023 laws, that there was any specific discussion as to that specific use of word or connotation. With the former question, do we check citizenship? I'm unaware that we check citizenship in terms of any kind of national demographics or that purpose. There was also a question as to people that live in Loudoun County coming to speak. Years ago, the previous school board decided we were
not going to have people outside Loudoun County speaking as well, and there was a question on somebody recently that put Maryland, did not live here. So that person ended up being a former student from Loudoun County. But I guess my questions are, how is this enforced, and how are we checking where people are coming from or if they're related to Loudoun County in any way? You can answer that, but I will have further questions.
I don't know if Ms. Rashid does. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. It's my understanding for public comment purposes for school board meetings, that's run through the school board clerk, who's not with us today, but the staff can certainly follow up with her to see what her process is. Thank you, Mr. Allen, and thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Yes, that'd be helpful. I know in the public comment document we receive, it usually says what district someone resides in, so I imagine they are getting address information related to public comment. Yes, Mr. Sutton. Mr. Chair, I'd be more than happy to have that discussion with the
board. I know the conversation recently has come up, Ms. Griffiths, related to the, I'm going to call it a resident of Loudoun County, the Maryland individual specifically. So if you will allow me to look into that for you, I'd be more than happy to look into that for you. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Mr. Allen, could you repeat the language you suggested that you might recommend we edit lines 224 to 226, referencing Policy 2520? Certainly, Chair Svenson. For this committee's consideration, one option is, "In accordance with
Policy 2520, members of the public..." Alternatively, "In accordance with the eligibility requirements set forth in Policy 2520, members of the public...," or some permutation, "Subject to the eligibility requirements set forth in Policy 2520, members of the public..." Thank you, Mr. Allen. That's helpful. So at this time, I will introduce an amendment. I move that in the red line version, we replace the existing language at 224 through
226 with the following quote, "In accordance with Policy 2520, members of the public are encouraged to attend meetings of the school board and to communicate their views to the board at times provided for public comments. Spontaneous discussion from members of the public during other times shall not be permitted." Do we have a second for that motion? I'm sorry, Chair Svenson, if you don't mind, can you just repeat that again? Because- Certainly. So we will, in the red line version, strike the existing language at lines 224 to 226 and replace it with the following language,
quote, "In accordance with Policy 2520, members of the public are encouraged to attend meetings of the school board and to communicate their views to the board at times provided for public comments. Spontaneous discussion from members of the public during other times shall not be permitted." And Chair Svenson, if I may have another question about your amendment? Yes. Has this gone through, I'm assuming it has, but has this gone through our legal department? Just want to make sure. Yes. I think this closely tracks what Mr. Allen just proposed, and I know that staff is recommending that we make this conforming change along the lines that MSAC is
suggesting. So this just ensures that we're being a bit clearer and that we're just tracking the other policy that governs participation for public meetings, and putting that here in this policy. Thank you, Chair Svenson, for that clarification. And I didn't mean to disrupt your motion on the floor. And I second the motion. Thank you, Dr. Rashid. Is there any discussion of the motion? Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Chair Svenson. You said spontaneous discussion. Can you go through that again? Yes. The current language in our draft meeting procedures policy at 226 references spontaneous
discussion- Mm-hmm ... which I take to mean that members of the public are invited to participate during the public comment period, but they would not be permitted, for instance, to interrupt what we're doing right now. Okay. They wouldn't be able to speak during the information or action item portion of a meeting. I think that is the case right now, isn't it? That's right. So not changing that portion of it. This amendment's merely changing the reference to citizens, which is vague at the moment, and bringing in that language from Policy 2520 and just saying that if you're eligible
to participate under 2520, you're encouraged to attend meetings here and communicate your views during public comment. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. At this time, we will take a vote on the motion. Oh, your motion. Yes, on my motion. So this is the amendment that we've been discussing. So, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. So the motion passes three to zero with all school board members present. We'll return to the base motion now, where to the discussion of the meeting procedures
action item. Is there further discussion about Policy 2420, the meeting procedures? Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Chair Svenson. On the red line, at C, I'm just wondering, this is all brand new, okay? So I remember bringing up, when I first started as a school board member, to be able to have access to be online for committee meetings. And I was specifically told that could not be done because of equipment issues. Depending on the room you're in, we can't possibly do virtual.
It's too difficult. I got a couple nos out of that. So basically, as of today, we are putting in there that we can have committee members be online virtually, and we are able to accommodate. I had asked about that several times, and I was told that was not possible. So, I have no problem with it, but I'm just curious to know why I happened to mention it. And forgive me, it was Dr. Bergen's predecessor, Dr. Bergen is not here today, Mr. Smith, that I used to talk to about this. So can you speak to the fact that
we were not doing this before for committee meetings? And I think one time we did it for a previous A chair of the finance and operations, and I was surprised because I was told it wasn't possible. So what changed? I'm curious to know what changed as to why we can have committee members online all of a sudden, when I was told no. Can you elaborate on that? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. I am without institutional knowledge specifically as to that. What I could theorize, potentially,
if the opportunity was not provided to certain committee members in the past is if there's two committee meetings at the same time, one in this room and one in 102 A and B, 102 A and B does not offer the opportunity for virtual participation due to technological issues. So that's all I can theorize. But I'm aware in the boardroom, as we are right now in 100 B, that there have been previous committee meetings where committee meeting members have appeared virtually. I'm only familiar with one, that happened to be mine, and it was one
time. So are you saying the other room, is it possible? To put it in a policy, is it possible every time to have a committee member be virtual? Or is it going to be a technological issue if we don't have this room? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. That's a very fair point. And I think it's well taken in terms of if there are constraints that there have been in the past, and if 102 A and B does not provide for virtual participation due to
technological limitations, then perhaps there should be a carve-out in the policy for that, subject to technological limitations, comma, virtual committee meetings may or may not afford the opportunity for virtual participation. That's certainly a consideration before the committee. So with that, I would make an amendment to add that in there if technology is not available. I do want to mention that I know that we are getting new technology this summer. So again, I'm curious to know, is that why we're putting this in
here? Because no matter what room you're in, you'll be able to be virtual? Can you answer that? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. I cannot currently answer that. I think staff can check with our chief technology officer to see if those upgrades will provide that technology for virtual participation in 102 A and B, and we can get back to you. Yes, if you can make note to get back to me on that. I'm very curious about this because I had to miss a couple of committee meetings because I didn't believe we had a virtual option. So I'm surprised to see this.
I was surprised that we can do virtual now with committee. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Any further discussion on this policy? All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion to move this policy forward. So moved. Thank you, Dr. Rashid. And just, I guess, for belt and suspenders, I'll make a motion just to read it fully, and then I'll ask for a second. So, I move that the legislative and policy committee consider proposed changes to Policy 2420 as amended and forward it to the full school board as an information item.
Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. So with that, I just want to double-check. No further discussion on this item? All right. At this time, we'll take-- Oh, Mrs. Griffiths? Per the amendment of adding the technology, I think that will go in here for the information item to the board, correct? Would you like to make a formal motion? A formal motion to add where technology allows, even regardless of the fact that we may have updated technology over the summer. We don't know for sure. There may be some
meeting room where we might have a committee meeting, and there might not be. So it needs to be in there. Thank you. A formal amendment to add where technology is available. Thank you. Do you have particular language? Perhaps Mr. Allen, I know you referenced something. Do you have particular language you'd like to make a motion in terms of- I would like to make a motion to add it. Mr. Allen, I ask that you provide the language per this discussion today. Thank you. So I think we'll need something specific to put in the policy if we are going to amend it before sending it on as an information item. So I'm happy to give folks a few minutes
to identify where in the policy we would want to put the language, and then we can fully- If I may, Chair Spencer ... go through it. Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. In line C, I'm sure it can be put in there, and it could be something simple. You have transacted through telephonic video or electronic communication means. You could put it there as far as when available. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. I think that works, right? Particularly, would you be amenable to, on line 24 in the red lines under C1, General Conditions, to start
that provision with, "Where technology permits, comma, a school board or committee member may participate in a meeting through electronic communication"? I think that might address what you're- I believe so. Thank you, Mr. Allen All right. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Mrs. Griffiths, to make that formal motion, then I'll ask for a second. I hope I remember now, right? Okay, so we're going to go to C, line one, under general conditions. I'd like to make an amendment to add, where you said, "technology when available." Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. It was C1.
In line 24- In line 24 ... after general conditions, to start that provision with the following language, "Where technology allows," comma. Where technology allows. Okay. And we'll just add it in there. Hopefully, that's sufficient for today. Thank you. Is there a second for that motion? Second. Thank you, Dr. Rashid. In terms of further discussion on this amendment, I wanted to ask Mr. Allen if there's anything in the Virginia code that's referenced in Section C1 that would require remote participation, such that
technology availability, or the inability to conduct the meeting remotely via technology would be something we'd have to overcome because people have to be able to participate? I don't know whether the code is permissive or requires us to provide this opportunity. Just want to make sure that this is consistent with code. Thank you, Mr. Swenson. I'll take a look, and the Virginia code that would provide for this is Virginia Code 2.2-3708.2. If you give me a minute, I can look that over. I did want to also update, I have heard back from our chief technology officer,
and he has confirmed that 102 will permit, after the technological upgrades, will permit for virtual participation for committee members going forward in the 102 A and B. In all rooms? In 102 A and B, and this boardroom. Okay. Yes, that's correct. With that understanding, Mrs. Griffiths, would you like to proceed with the amendment? I would. All right. We will take a five-minute recess to give Mr. Allen a moment to take a look at that code. Thank you.
All right. We'll come out of our recess now. I will turn it over to you, Mr. Allen, to share information after reviewing the code. Thank you, Chair Swenson. In my review of Virginia Code 2.2-3708.2, I think I misspoke earlier, that section provides for meetings held through electronic communications in declared states of emergency. It's 2.2-3708.3 that provides for meetings held through electronic communication means, situations other than declared states of emergency. And I do not
think that Mrs. Griffith's proposed amendment would create any tension with respect to Virginia Code. Thank you, Mr. Allen. In terms of this amendment, now that we've confirmed that the technology requirements are there, or will be there after this summer for each of the rooms we actually meet in for committee meetings, I would prefer not to add this language in, because I don't want it to be limiting our ability to participate remotely based on technical availability. I think we should be able to get it done.
We have sufficient rooms to do it, and I don't really want that to be a way to deny remote participation by saying there's not technology available. I think that we're capable of providing the technology to enable that. Yes, Mrs. Griffith. Thank you, Chair Swenson. You bring up an interesting point, and I also felt, when I brought this up originally under Dr. Smith, that We should have been able to accommodate years ago with technology. So, I see your point. We should've been able to accommodate then, we should be able to accommodate now.
If it really means that much to you to take that out, fine, but we don't want to limit anybody that wants to be remote. I guess I don't want the policy to go against, "Oh, well, that particular room doesn't have it," or whatever. Maybe change the meeting, change the date, change the time so it can be met. But that's your call. As long as the point is there that with the new technology we're going to have, you should be able to do remote in committee meetings. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Would you like to move forward with a vote on the
amendment, or would you like to withdraw your amendment? If that's proper, Mr. Allen, under parliamentary procedure. Well, we're still going to mention some of it, right? Part of it? Or we're just going to take it out completely? My proposal is to take it out completely. Please read it again, Mr. Allen. Certainly, Mrs. Griffiths. I believe what I heard the motion on the floor is at line 24 of the red lined version of Policy 2420, Meeting Procedures, at section C1, to start that provision with the following language, "Where technology allows," comma. Yes, that's right. As I said before, I think it
makes participation subject to technology availability, which I would prefer not to do. Can I also mention that, I started to mention changing the dates, changing the times to accommodate? You're welcome to make the comment, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Chair Svenson. If we do remove that amendment, I think it should be noted that if there is an issue with room bookings, and we are not able to get the accommodation of technology, that the meetings should be
changed, the time, the date, whatever needs to be done to accommodate school board members to be able to come in virtually. Now, would we need an amendment for that? Are you able to come up with something? Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. I wonder if it would be more helpful when this comes out of committee and to the full board as an information item where our chief technology officer, Aaron Smith, is available, if he could ask some of these as a subject matter expert on technology and technological capabilities, if he could provide some insight. Because,
and in full candor, I'm unable to discern from how he responded, if 102A, B currently has that technology, or he's confirmed that it will after, but it could. And so, I think it would just be helpful to inform a potential amendment for the board's consideration to maybe ask those questions and think about it in the interim between it coming out of this committee and going to the full board. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I'll work with you on possible amendments for this policy then.
I'll come back to you and work with you on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. Do I take it that you're formally withdrawing the amendment? I'm formally withdrawing now, but I will have conversations with Mr. Allen about other potential amendments to make sure that the wording is correct. Thank you. Per policy, per code. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. And I also note that it may not be this particular policy where some of these things come into play, because I know that the time and date of the committee meetings is often
subject to the committee chair, and I don't actually know what policy home that lives in. But hopefully, that's something you all can discuss ahead of the full school board meeting where we discuss this as an information item, assuming we pass it out of committee now. So, with that, I believe we are now on the base motion because we had a motion that was seconded to move this Policy 2420 as amended to the full school board as an information item. So, unless there's further discussion, I'll move forward with the vote
here. All in favor of Legislative and Policy Committee considering proposed changes to Policy 2420 and forwarding as amended, and forwarding it to the full school board members as an information item, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes three to zero with all school board members present. Thank you everyone for the discussion. With that, we will move to the next item on the agenda, which is our legislative update, item 5.01, presented by Mr. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Sutton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the committee will indulge me for a bit, I'm going to talk a little bit, very broadly at the beginning, and then we'll get into some specific numbers that I think are important. When we last spoke, there was a bit of uncertainty about what this process was going to look like and where we were going to end. But I think the I think those dark clouds have moved on, and I think we have a pretty good idea of what we're looking at. During the great compromises, as call it, the Virginia budget was a result of, I think, extensive and probably
exhaustive negotiations amongst the various stakeholders including obviously our legislators, our education advocates, the governor's office, and what I would consider to be interested parties. Given the scope and scale of the proposed investments, particularly the $2 billion in new spending, there were inevitably differing priorities, which caused the chasm to happen. And those concerns needed to be worked out and balanced, and I think they have. So the key factors in reaching the compromise included
prioritization of core education needs. I think both sides recognized the importance of investing in teacher salaries, school infrastructure, special education. I think this led to agreements on funding salary increases, increased grants for school construction and infrastructure, and ensuring that fundamental needs were addressed. Funding sources and revenue considerations, discussions centered around how to fund these initiatives sustainably. For instance, the proposals authorized 1% local option sales tax for school construction.
That was a compromise that allowed local communities to contribute to their school needs and balancing statewide investments with local control. New spending with fiscal responsibility was important. They negotiated to ensure that new initiatives, such as expanded early childhood programs, childcare subsidies, were fiscally responsible and aligned with the Commonwealth's revenue projections. This involved adjusting allocations and included provisions and carry forward funds and phased implementations.
The stakeholder concerns, we have teacher groups, education advocates, parent groups, they all push for significant salary increases and better early childhood access, while fiscally centered folks emphasize budget discipline. Negotiations work to find a middle ground that delivered what I think Richmond agrees is a meaningful improvement without overextending their financial limits. The legislative and policy dynamics, the negotiations within the general assembly, including bipartisan
discussions and amendments, definitely played a crucial role, especially in the last week and a half. Consensus building by offering targeted increases such as at-risk add-ons and special education funding while still making concession in other areas to gain a broader support across the board. Inclusion of flexibility measures. The budget includes provisions allowing participating divisions to provide slightly smaller, if needed, salary increases and to carry forward funds, offering localities and
districts a little bit more flexibility. This helped garner support from all different kinds of people who had differences in the House and the Senate. So overall, this year the compromise was reached through a combination of prioritization, revenue and funding negotiations, stakeholder engagement, and basic political consensus building. The result is what our friends in Richmond think is a balanced approach that aims to expand educational opportunities and support
students and educators while maintaining that need for fiscal responsibility. I want to go through the number salad. So bear with me because it's a lot of numbers, and I'm not an economics guy, but I'll do my best. So we're going to focus specifically on some allocations here. The budget proposes about 720 million in general fund dollars above the House Bill 30 introduced level. Key policy actions include adding approximately 137 million for additional childcare subsidy
slots to serve families earning up to 85% of the median income and 25 million for public-private childcare initiatives. Other policy actions feature a total of 960 million from the biennium, with 602 million from non-general funds, bringing the total to nearly 1.5 billion in policy-related investments. Now, these investments support salary increases, school construction grants, special education enhancements, infrastructure and operational funding, and various other initiatives such as
school breakfast reimbursements, which turned out to be a huge deal this year, and funding for at-risk student programs. Let's look at compensation. Regarding compensation, the budget proposes a 4% salary increase for instructional support positions recognized under the SOQ, standards of quality, effective July 1st, 2026, and then July 1st, 2027. The total state share of this salary increase is projected at 254 million for fiscal year '27 and 516 million for fiscal year '28.
Participating school divisions may choose to provide, again, a slightly small increase and receive prorated amounts of funds accordingly. In addition to the salary adjustments, significant investments are planned in school construction with a total of 519 million allocated over the biennium, an increase of million compared to the current biennium. Legislation will also authorize a 1% local option sales tax contingent upon a referendum to support school construction projects. For special education, the budget proposes
148 million over the biennium to increase special education add-on rate from 4.75 to 9.25%, and from 5.25% to 17.5% for students with more severe disabilities. An additional 10 million will expand funds for the students with intense needs, aiming to reduce reliance on private day placements, which can be costly, by funding more categories of students with disabilities. Some of the other notable initiatives include 28 million increase over the biennium to
raise the maximum at-risk add-on rate from 48% to 48.85%, and a 60 million increase in flexible funds for infrastructure and operations per pupil in '27. Reimbursements for school breakfast programs will increase with a $17.8 million boost to raise meal reimbursement rates. Additionally, 1.3 million allocation will support a joint committee task force for reviewing K through 12 funding formulas, which will likely hit us again in the next legislative session.
So we'll hear about that. Early childcare and education, the budget includes 137 million increase over the biennium for childcare subsidy programs, expanding access to families earning up to 85% of the median income. This funding can carry forward into FY28. So again, that's probably something we're going to hear about as well. And this addresses potential wait lists without increasing overall program costs. There's also a one-time allocation of 25 million for employee childcare assistance program, which establishes a cost-sharing
initiative amongst families, the state, and employers through FY The budget reflects a comprehensive approach to support Virginia's K through 12 and early childhood systems through what they deem this year as targeted investments in salaries, infrastructure, again, special ed, childhood care, and policy reforms. It's all aimed at, in their mind, fostering a stronger, more equitable education environment across the commonwealth. I gave you a lot of numbers. I'm sure that the good folks in our budget and finance office will probably, at
some point, go through all of those. Again, I'm not an expert, but it was a very comprehensive approach. It just took us a little while to get there. I'm sorry, it's kind of boring to go through all those numbers, but I think they're important. No, thank you, Mr. Sutton. They are very important. And I, for one, was very interested, so thank you. I appreciate you providing us an update, and it's exciting that a budget compromise was reached so we can move forward with the business. So with that, I'll open it up to questions from my colleagues about the legislative update.
Yes, Dr. Rashid. Thank you, Chair Svenson. And thank you, Mr. Sutton, for a loaded presentation with quite a lot of detail. I too am intrigued with all the data that you present, or rather the numbers that you presented. Everywhere from balancing the statewide investments to the special education funding. It was a lot. But it looks like we're on a good path. And with that being said, I was just curious after hearing all that, what do you think the next steps are and what could we expect, especially after hearing all this?
Sure. I think where we're at now, quite simply, is the governor is now going to send down or come forward with any potential amendments probably later this week, which is Thursday or Friday. But from what I understand and from what we're tracking, I would expect that we will see, I think from a K through 12 perspective, that this is pretty much where we're at. I don't think it's going to fluctuate whether up or down, sideways, long way, slant ways, whatever. We're looking at probably a potential vote on Monday, possibly on Monday,
maybe Tuesday, but Monday seems to be the target date. So barring any amendments from the governor, barring any additional action, the vote comes next week, boom, we move on, and in three weeks, we start the process all over again, and we go August 1st into... Or yeah, late July, August 1st into preparations for the next session, which is going to include a couple of these things anyway that are pushed out to '28, '29, '30. So that's where we're at. Thank you. I appreciate you. Additional questions from my colleagues?
Yes, Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Mr. Svenson. Obviously, I'll be concerned when we have this vote to see how it will affect us here at LCPS as far as with our budget. So if you could keep us updated, I assume you'll keep us updated- Sure ... at the next meeting and let us know how it will affect our budget and what kind of money we will get for the- Sure. I like to say that I go from A to B, and I got nothing to do with C, which is C the money. So the Again, the budget folks and the people upstairs will, I'm sure Ms. Willoughby will gladly break it down and show you exactly how much is
going to cost what, and what we're getting, and what we got to give, and all that. So I'm just happy that the process is over for this year. Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. Yes, I'm very curious to hear from Ms. Willoughby how, for instance, the school breakfast reimbursements affect our nutrition fund, if at all. I was curious, Mr. Sutton, I know that the budget team has to break this down further, but from your perspective, what the biggest impacts of the budget will be on LCPS specifically, like which items are most impactful for us? I think the
biggest, again, this is me. Now, I don't like generally asking these questions because I'm a process guy, meaning you and I have done this. We try to balance what goes on in Richmond, the day-to-day, with the expectation, what it all means. I'm not a soothsayer, so I don't know what it all means. I'm not going to give you a specific as to what I think is the most important thing, but what I can do is tell you that some of the things that we've dealt with in '25, '26,
whether it's, again, that prioritization of what we consider these core education needs, whether it's healthcare, mental health, I'll throw in healthcare with mental health, funding sources, the revenue impacts, all of that stuff is going to be back. Because a lot of the things that we discussed, or that were discussed over the last, how many months? Five months, six months, they're resolved, but they're really not resolved because a lot of them are going to be pushed forward. So when I think that's why this
sort of prep work for the next legislative session is going to be the most important to determine based on balancing new spending and how does that impact our fiscal responsibility. Addressing these concerns from parents and educators and all these other stakeholder groups, how is that going to play into what our priorities are for next year? What is our delegation, what is their viewpoint? Where are they coming from? What is the overall general assembly? Our folks in
the western part of the state and who are in smaller districts, representing smaller districts, that maybe their impacts and their needs are different, but they're gaining much more of a voice. What is all of that going to look like? I just don't know. I know I didn't answer your question, but I hate to say what is-- It doesn't really matter what I think. It just matters that all these key priorities that we've sort of reached compromises on, they're going to be pushed out, and they're going to be discussed again. Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. I appreciate it.
Any further questions from my colleagues? No. All right. With that, we'll move on from information item to new business. Is there any new business? No. Okay. No new business. With that, I will adjourn the meeting. Our next meeting will be, give me a second. I wrote it down earlier. Our next meeting will be August 12th. So look forward to seeing everyone at 5:00 p.m. August 12th. Thank you so much.