Coraggio Consulting
Loudoun County School Board, Special School Board Meeting — FY27 Operating Budget Adoption, Tuesday, February 3, 2026

Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Place: Loudoun County Public Schools / School Board meeting (see BoardDocs / LCPS-TV)
Length: 1h 38m (video)
Official meeting video (Vimeo / LCPS-TV): https://player.vimeo.com/video/1161547575?rel=0
BoardDocs (School Board): https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/loudoun/Board.nsf/Public

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-10. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:03:04] Good evening. I call 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.

[00:03:40] 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.

[00:03:57] 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, Vice Chair Donohue. 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.

[00:04:27] 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 am included.

[00:04:52] 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 other discussion that may include or affect benefits for LCPS employees.

[00:05:19] 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, while in the excess of the statutory three employees whose interests may be affected, of which I am included.

[00:05:35] I can and will participate fairly objectively in the public's interest. This disclosure will be reflected in the public 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 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.

[00:06:06] 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.

[00:06:23] These benefits, however, affect thousands of employees well in excess of the statuatory 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.

[00:06:43] 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.

[00:07:18] 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. Chernoff. 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

[00:07:51] 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 Before we start with our agenda tonight, I would like to just take a point of personal privilege and say, Ms. Sharon Willoughby, happy birthday.

[00:08:25] With that, we do have the opportunity tonight to ask any follow-up questions in terms of the responses to budget questions. So for item 3.01, board members will open the floor. Do you have any questions at this time?

[00:08:47] Ms. Chernoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was looking through the questions in the budget packet this weekend, 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.

[00:09:15] Should there be a motion to reduce the COLA within certain groups that are not included in the collective bargaining unit? Thank you, Ms. Chernoff. I'll take that question. 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 our employees.

[00:09:49] 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.

[00:10:12] 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, custodians, bus drivers, electricians, HVAC technicians, nurses, and other critical support operational staff.

[00:10:38] Often, those individuals in those positions expressed that they felt treated differently or less than, particularly when promotional movement required them crossing into separate administrative scales that included coordinators, supervisors, assistant principals, directors, supervisory positions.

[00:11:03] 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.

[00:11:31] 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.

[00:11:50] 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.

[00:12:07] 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 not simply be a compensation adjustment.

[00:12:25] 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 higher responsibility roles less attractive.

[00:12:57] So in short, this is not simply a COLA decision, it was more of a structural decision with long-term implications for equity, morale, and career progression. Thank you.

[00:13:16] Board members, any further questions? Mr. Pepper. Ms. Bolin, thank you for that explanation. It's really helpful to kind of know the history of everything. Can you talk a little bit more about the wage compression that would happen, 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?

[00:13:43] So the short answer would be if it's just this one time, no. But there would be no guarantee of just this one time. I know what is intended for the next three years of the collective bargaining negotiations, but beyond that I'm not sure.

[00:14:03] The union could still have a desire to negotiate higher COLA increases for our non-certified bargaining unit 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 the certified bargaining unit, over time that compression would occur.

[00:14:35] Mr. Cardi. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. So, and again, because I wasn't part of the privy to any of the negotiation pieces, just out of curiosity, when you're looking at writing salaries and getting people kind of righted in the right levels and steps, was the COLA discussion and adding 4% and 5% COLA, like What was the strategy around that, I guess, is my question.

[00:15:06] And I ask that because in the commercial industry space, employees never get COLA. I mean, it's not a normal thing that happens in the corporate world. And if it does, it's usually based on the federal or the state, which is, if I understand, the federal is 2.8 and the state is 2.6.

[00:15:24] So we're way above that. So was the COLA, I don't understand 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 asking that in an accusatory way.

[00:15:42] I'm just curious as how that was sorted out, not doing more step increases versus COLA. So I'll do my best. I can't speak to necessarily the strategy behind negotiations.

[00:16:01] 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 the salary.

[00:16:16] 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 as, as high as what the public sector or what LCPS has received in the past several years.

[00:16:46] However, the strategy has been to ensure that LCPS is the employer of choice, 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 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

[00:17:16] strategy around 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 budget adoption vice chair donahue do you have

[00:17:49] a motion yes i do thank you madam chair i move that the loudon 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. Thank you. I have a second by Mr.

[00:18:15] Svinson. It has been properly moved and seconded that the Loudoun County School Board adopt the fiscal year 27 superintendent's estimate of needs and approve the fiscal year 27 budget resolution. Is there any discussion or amendments regarding the base motion? Ms. Chernoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget by moving the following one-time purchases totaling one million one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars to FY 26 year-end funding, one hundred and sixty thousand flight simulators, two hundred and thirty two

[00:18:52] six hundred two hundred and thirty two thousand six hundred dollars for new floor and maintenance equipment, five hundred ninety seven thousand four hundred dollars for portable replacement school radios and one hundred and eighty five thousand 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 staffs recommended changes motions I'm gonna oh we will pause pause and come back to you thank you so much

[00:19:28] for understanding miss Donahue do you have a second motion yes thank you madam chair I move to amend the budget by enacting staffs recommended change to reduce one assistant principal in accordance with the enhanced staffing standard for cost savings of $212,804. Thank you. I have a motion by Vice Chair Donohue. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. Chernoff. 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,

[00:20:07] please open the vote board members please close or please record your vote I'm 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 to miss Chernoff could you please restate your motion I was hoping you would give me a second chance I love it I move to amend the budget by moving the following one-time purchases totaling in one one million one hundred and seventy

[00:20:47] five thousand dollars to FY 26 year-end funding a hundred and sixty thousand flight simulators two hundred and two two hundred and thirty two thousand six hundred for new floor and maintenance equipment five hundred ninety seven thousand four hundred dollars for portable replacement school radios and one hundred and eighty five thousand dollars 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 previously

[00:21:25] amended by Ms. Chernoff. Is there a second? Second. I have a second by Dr. Rasheed. Ms. Chernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. 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

[00:22:03] is there uh school board members is there any discussion on ms shuranoff's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended right seeing no discussion we will move to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Ms. Chernoff by electronic vote. Clerk, please open the vote. Board members, please record your vote. Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion

[00:22:36] passes unanimously with all nine school board members present. Is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Ms. Chernoff. 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. Chernoff. Is there a second? Second. Oh, thank you, Mr.

[00:23:13] I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Ms. Chernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I mentioned this at last Thursday's meeting, 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 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 those goals thank you school board members is there any discussion seeing

[00:23:52] 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 previously amended? Yes, Ms. Chernoff. Thank you for your patience.

[00:24:31] 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 amended by Ms. Chernoff. Is there a second? Second. I have a second by Vice Chair Donohue. 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

[00:25:09] 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. No. School board members is there any discussion on Ms. Chernoff's current amendment? Ms. Riccardi. Thank you so much. So is this for a range of professional

[00:25:43] development including like the QTEL stuff and whatnot? Mr. Slevin I don't want to 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 want to elaborate? Yes. Each additional content specialist that would be 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, two English language development sessions, three QTEL institutes, and approximately 400 walkthroughs and coaching visits across all of our schools.

[00:26:22] And so for each position, it would be significantly adding to the capacity of support for our teachers in the classroom. Great. Thank you so much. I cannot express how appreciative I am of this motion. This is, I think 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.

[00:26:47] And so I'm really excited that we're making this investment so that we can, I mean, I guess the best way to describe it is just kind of 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.

[00:27:03] And 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.

[00:27:24] 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. Is there another amendment to the base motion?

[00:27:45] Ms. Chernoff. Halfway there. I move to amend the budget by adding three elementary English learner facilitators at a cost of $409,079. Thank you. And given that you spoke to your motion, I'll open the floor to school board members.

[00:28:03] Is there any discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. Second. Thank you, Ms. Donahue. Mrs. Griffis. I'm hoping when I get to my amendment, we will have more money for Ms. Chernoff's motions. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion. Let's see. We have a motion to amend the base motion as previously amended by Ms.

[00:28:36] Chernoff. 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? Miss Chernoff? Thank you, madam chair

[00:29:11] This amendment really comes from multiple board members particularly miss LaBelle and mr. Pepper and I I move to amend the budget and restore one Educational diagnostic diagnostician at a cost of one hundred and thirty thousand three hundred and thirty eight dollars. Thank you, Miss Chernoff. Is there a second?

[00:29:33] Thank you. I have a second by Miss LaBelle Miss Chernoff, would you like to speak to your motion? This I believe was being adjusted It was being taken out in the Sion be due to the staffing standard with enrollment But the needs we have discussed are high and this role is particularly influential in keeping Making sure that testing that 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 to the value of this position through lots of feedback over the last couple of weeks

[00:30:12] And so like I said in conjunction with several others that have also wanted to support this I am moving this forward Thank you school board members. Is there any discussion seeing no discussion? We will move further and 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 miss Riccardi mr

[00:30:52] Svensson mishurn off myself. I sure Donahue Mr. Pepper dr. Rasheed and miss LaBelle and one school board member voting. No, mrs. Griffiths Is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended mission off last one?

[00:31:11] I moved to amend the budget by implementing the next phase of device storage carts for first grade at a cost of $300,000 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 previously amended by mission off. Is there a second second? Thank you Miss Riccardi. I have a second by miss Riccardi Mr. Chernoff 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

[00:31:48] extensively about device usage for our youngest learners 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 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 And so I am very proud to bring this forward. I'm excited for this phased work to 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

[00:32:26] Is there any discussion on the sure enough's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended mr. Pepper? Thank you madam chair I would also, one, like to echo what Ms. Chernoff has said about the way that we're using technology with our youngest learners. But I also want to recognize that by putting this into our budget this year, there may be further cost savings down the line as we look at the replacement cycle for the laptop.

[00:32:50] So this is a really well thought out amendment. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mrs. Griffiths. If you could clarify again, these carts, are these elementary students going to have the Chromebooks or they're going to be brought in on carts?

[00:33:10] I'm trying to understand. Thank you. Mr. Renaud? 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.

[00:33:29] 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 To just kind of move away from that reliance on the digital piece. Is there anything you would like to add mr?

[00:33:46] 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 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 I am very pleased to see this amendment on the table and I'm looking forward to supporting it.

[00:34:07] 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 real learning in our classroom and to really focus on what the best practices are.

[00:34:32] And this is definitely a situation, I can say, as a parent that has evolved over the course of my own children's lives. And we are understanding better every day how technology is impacting us all. And I think I can foresee in the future perhaps continuing this conversation to include other grades.

[00:34:55] But I am grateful to see this on the floor tonight. 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.

[00:35:14] 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?

[00:35:30] Oh, Mr. Svensson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Pepper, for his work on this amendment as well. I move to amend the FY27 budget by adding one special education mentor coach at a cost of $136,360. For clarity, this is an additional special education mentor coach on top of the addition that's already in the SEON.

[00:35:53] Thank you. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Mr. Svensson. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Mr. Svensson, would you like to speak further to your motion? Yes, please.

[00:36:09] so we have an increasing number of novice special education teachers and currently with the two mentor coaches we have they're serving 45 teachers around 45 teachers each by adding not one but two special education mentor coaches we can get to the goal ratio of coach to novice teacher this is going to help our teachers develop in the classroom to serve their students and it's going to help with retention of our teachers so they feel supported in their their first year of teaching thank you school board members is there any discussion on mr.

[00:36:46] Svensson's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended okay of course right that's so classic all right that was funny thanks 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

[00:37:20] please record your vote. Clerk please close and display the vote. The motion passes unanimously with all school board members present. Is there another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Mr. Svensson? Thank you madam chair. 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

[00:37:56] on level 21 and above on scale B principals assistant principals and deans for a cost savings of $1,184,895 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

[00:38:31] 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. Svensson. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Vice Chair Donoghue. Mr. Svensson, would you like to speak further to your amendment? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 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 appreciate Ms. Willoughby and Ms. Boland for

[00:39:07] working with me over the last week on this amendment, and I understand concerns about wage compression when folks are all on the same salary scale, and I would not intend for this kind of differentiation to go forward into perpetuity, but because our teachers are getting a four percent COLA, it seems entirely fair to have folks principals, assistant principals, deans, supervisors on level 21 and above to also have that four

[00:39:42] percent. The reason that we have a five percent COLA for non-certified positions in the bargaining unit is because these are folks such as our our bus drivers, custodians, and nutrition managers working in our cafeterias who have been historically under compensated and that 5% COLA was to recognize that fact and and give them an extra boost and I 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 and because for for

[00:40:20] people do not always control whether they're in the bargaining unit or not and I wanted to make sure that folks in those similar positions are receiving receiving that 5% COLA, but for folks who are level 21 and above, I want to make sure that this is an equitable solution with the amount that our teachers 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, whether that be credit card fee increases or the increase to school lunches.

[00:40:54] So, thank you. Thank you. School board members, any further discussion? Mr. Pepper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Svensson, for kind of explaining this. And, you know, when we go on to this, it's one of those things that you're very torn about, right?

[00:41:13] Because I know that we have issues in our school nutrition fund. We have issues in some other places where 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. And that being said, it was also kind of challenging to find that line, right?

[00:41:32] Where in that universal scale do we draw this distinction between, you know, those who get the 5% COLA like those in the non-certified staff are getting in the bargaining unit and the 4% that the teachers are getting? And I think that Mr. Svensson 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.

[00:41:54] So I want to thank him for bringing this up 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 going to play with our teachers and our community.

[00:42:09] So I'm just going to put that out there. Ms. Chernoff? Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with a lot of what you said in terms of the struggle. 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

[00:42:44] 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 have 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 And with that unknown and not fully understanding the context of those implications

[00:43:20] 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 four percent and other groups get a five percent 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 begin to learn more about how those two things have collided and I think we're all learning in terms of the newness of our collective bargaining agreement and I am grateful that the collective bargaining agreement supports

[00:43:56] 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 five percent i struggle with that too. And I can easily echo what my colleagues have said so far. And I have been

[00:44:35] 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 agreement, and look forward to having that continue to support this effort. But it does have me wondering, and I just, in terms of the specific carve-out

[00:45:13] 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 to make this motion part Thank you, Chair Chandler. I'll do my best without knowing.

[00:45:38] I would say that while it is easy to say this is a one-time adjustment that the board will make moving forward, I think when you are setting up for recruiting for those positions, there is going to be a historical look back at the way that we have addressed or handled compensation.

[00:46:11] And internally, our staff will see that taking on those roles does not necessarily equate to more pay or the same level of increase. So while a one time change from 5% to 4% may not have a significant impact right now, there's no way of knowing if that were to continue into the future.

[00:46:45] Does that help? Yes. As a follow up question, are there any challenges at this current time in terms of hiring for these positions? There are challenges for hiring principal positions, yes.

[00:47:02] Okay, thank you. School board members, any further discussion? Mr. Svensson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to highlight that, and just thank again Ms. Bolin and Ms. Willoughby for working with me.

[00:47:18] I understand that when there's one salary scale, creating this cutoff was a challenge, and I appreciate you all taking a look. And I think that where we arrived on level 21 makes a lot of sense for this year because that's supervisor on up.

[00:47:35] And I just don't think it's tenable for, you know, I don't think principals, assistant principals, deans, yes, they're on that different salary scale. They're on B, but, you know, they're in the schools every day working with teachers in the same building as the teachers.

[00:47:53] And the fact that you would have folks in that building who are getting the 4% cost of living adjustment reporting to folks who are getting the 5% who make a higher salary already, I don't think that is the right thing to do at this time. And I understand the concerns we've discussed about the wage compression if we were to do this over time.

[00:48:14] 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. But I will note that for the next couple years of the collective bargain agreement, that doesn't look to be the issue in the next several years.

[00:48:31] So I do think this is a, at least for me, a unique situation that we're in and why I think it's appropriate at this time. Thank you. Ms. LaBelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[00:48:47] Also, thank you to Mr. Svensson for looking this up. I was worried because of the charges for 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.

[00:49:09] 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 have objected mightily.

[00:49:24] Thank you very much. So thank you, Mr. Svensson. Thank you. Mr. Carty. Thank you. I really appreciate this. So I was doing my own digging and looking at a different, similar but different thing about COLA and diving into this.

[00:49:43] And I really do appreciate, Ms. Bullen and Ms. Willoughby, your time in really digging into this and answering a plethora of questions on both of our different approaches to this. I'm going to, shockingly, going to take a little bit of different approach on this one because I think as I started diving into this issue, it's raised more questions than given answers as far as what the right direction is for this.

[00:50:08] And, you know, again, not having been privy to the negotiations, I'm going to honor the fact that there were negotiations. They took a long time to get there. And I think I'm going to honor that. but I will tell you and I'm gonna and I share Miss Chernoff's concern that there's a lot more to uncover in this question and and the the ramifications that this could possibly create and in addition it's also raised a lot more questions again about the whole process as you know it's a budget as a whole and how we're going about this process and the transparency or lack of transparency

[00:50:45] in some aspects of the budget process and so I decided to back off from my my COLA 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 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 have within staff so at this point in time I'm gonna just stay away from the COLA motions at this point because I'm just really concerned that has much

[00:51:21] bigger ramifications than we've even explored. Thank you. Mr. Svensson. Thank you madam chair. I just wanted to highlight something that Ms. LaBelle pointed out that you know I'm very happy that the principals, assistant principals, deans, supervisors that are level 21 and above are getting an increase a 4% increase which is on par with the teachers and I think you know as Miss Chandler said as chair Chandler said that it's really important that we are recruiting and retaining the best educators we're compensating

[00:51:57] appropriately and I think that we would want to look over time you know in terms of the COLA increase if that's helping us attract and retain our educators but I think that for this year having a 4% increase is a good increase and so I the idea that going from five to four is causing major morale issue I I'm not sure that that's going to happen this year if it were to over time be the case that our administrators in the schools were getting shortchanged I would

[00:52:35] understand the morale concern I would understand the issues with recruiting and retaining them but I don't understand and don't don't understand how for the one year that this would happen at least right now the from getting a 4% 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 clerk please open the vote board members please record your

[00:53:10] vote school board members please close and display the vote I'm sorry clerk please close and display the vote okay so the motion passes with five school board members voting yes including mr. Svensson vice chair Donahue mr. pepper dr. Rasheed and miss LaBelle and three school board members voting no including mr. Carty mission off and myself and one school board member abstaining mrs.

[00:53:43] Griffiths. 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. We have a motion by Mr.

[00:54:18] 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 going to call a brief recess for five minutes so that we oh you're good okay uh 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 svenson's motion kind of went through because it's a fun domino game we

[00:54:57] we have out here. I know that 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, which is the school nutrition fee. The fact that it is a $2.60 per transaction fee 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 twenty

[00:55:36] dollars 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 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 miss labelle thank you madam

[00:56:09] chair i'd like to uh echo sort of what mr pepper was saying many of our 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.

[00:56:40] Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Rasheed. Thank you, Chair Chandler. I echo my colleague's sentiments. Thank you, Mr. Pepper, for bringing this forward. I think kids carrying cash is not really realistic anymore. I know once upon a time it would have been. So these transaction fees definitely have to be removed. Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, per Mr. Svensson's amendment, I thought you mentioned credit card fees in there. Can you tell me how the two might relate? Thanks. Thank you, Mrs. Griffiths. So my amendment moved funds that the

[00:57:19] 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 Mr. Pepper's amendment on on credit card fees any further questions yes vice-chair Donahue thank you madam chair I was just going to ask if we can zoom out on the tally

[00:57:54] board to see where we are madam chair may I address the board if I could orient you to the tote board a little bit because we have included motions that impact other funds usually our budget adoption activity 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 funded impacts is what is being displayed so right now the

[00:58:30] 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 the school nutrition fund there is a tally along the bottom but basically showing how the fund balance would 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 on to this is it on here oh there it is I'm sorry I wasn't I look far enough to the

[00:59:09] right so then you can see how on the far right there is the transfer in from the school operating fund and I'll just take this moment to highlight that this is setting a new precedent the school nutrition fund is set up as a special revenue fund meaning it is established to generate revenues to cover its expenses and so the school board has now just taken action recognizing that this will now become a subsidized operation so I just want to make sure the school board is very clear on that the fund balance what is also a little different here is that there is an existing fund balance

[00:59:48] this was not a fund that was projected to go negative this year or next year at this at the current rate as we presented during the school nutrition budget presentation there were multiple initiatives some impacting the budget some just impacting operations where we are trying to make the necessary adjustments to right-size the fund and have it become break-even, if not slightly profitable. Right now, it continues to be a net loss. The motions that have been made by transferring in the $1.2 million is not sufficient to cover the $1.5 million removal of the credit

[01:00:28] 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 a net loss of the operation and there will still be a drawdown of the fund balance as I have shared 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 needing to subsidize this operation and or having discussions with the county so i just want to put all that on the table in terms of just advising the board

[01:01:05] what is happening with this fund and that again we are setting a new precedent and beginning to subsidize when this fund is not 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 Vice Chair Donohue. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for Ms.

[01:01:32] Willoughby for giving us that context. I have to say I'm very conflicted about this proposal. I had, as many of my colleagues up here, had some significant concerns with the idea of LCPS moving to the cost of those fees onto our families.

[01:01:57] 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 link fees per transaction pose a significant hardship for some families.

[01:02:26] I am concerned because I don't feel comfortable that we have enough knowledge or that I have enough knowledge right now to look at, you know, is it the percentage of families who are incurring those fees, is it mostly families for whom this makes a substantial hardship?

[01:02:47] Or are the families for whom this is a substantial hardship only a small amount of these credit card fees? That's more information that I would like to have. I would also like the opportunity to explore other solutions, as we discussed previously.

[01:03:03] For example, if there is a vendor that offers payment platforms through PayPal, Zelle, or other venues besides cash, check, or these link payments with credit card fees.

[01:03:21] Again, I don't feel comfortable supporting this amendment at this time because 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.

[01:03:40] So for those reasons, I won't be supporting it tonight. Mrs. Griffiths? I echo Ms. Donoghue's comments because we really don't know in that number who really needs us to divert the fees.

[01:03:59] So I, too, will be voting against it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Svinsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to pick up on something that Vice Chair Donahue had stated, that I hope that in this course of this year, as I understand the LINC contract runs for a little bit longer, that we can be exploring options to address the high credit card fees that LINC is charging.

[01:04:27] I thought that the ACH option that was presented is a great solution for helping alleviate that, but I think there's more that we can hopefully do together over the next year to see how we can make a long-term, to create a long-term solution for the fees that LINC is creating.

[01:04:47] But I see this 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 address the link issue. Thank you.

[01:05:06] For myself, I would just like to say 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 an existential demand.

[01:05:23] We've seen applications for free and reduced lunch up, I believe, 180 percent. think there is a good reason to be asking these questions and and I would like to ask staff as a follow-up this is an unprecedented allocation but does it come 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 good very helpful

[01:06:02] clarification um and then is 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 percent increase it was substantial increases i i honestly can't recall off the top of my head but um i'm sure your memory is probably better than mine it was substantial it was um and it was part of an ongoing trend that we have seen over the last couple years thank you for that clarification thank you um mr pepper thank you Madam Chair and kind of echoing off what you had just said about free reduce the other thing that

[01:06:42] we've also seen in the nutrition fund is more lunch debt right which is which is indicative already of our families having a more difficult time paying for lunches and so if you put this 260 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 way Dr. Rasheed thank you chair and I may be a little late in the in the game but I thought that mr. Spenson's amendment to reduce the cola from to

[01:07:17] reduce the call at a 4% from 5% 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 maybe I just don't understand if someone can clarify this will be could you help us with that please sure and maybe 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 it approves now we have incurred additional expense in the school nutrition fund mr spenson's motion his intent in anticipation of this motion

[01:07:57] 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 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 and so on the tote board for the school nutrition for the school operating fund it nets to zero does that help clarify thank you mr. Knopf thank you madam

[01:08:37] chair I wanted to ask a question about I know we don't know what the state funds are gonna 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

[01:09:17] 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 we're only done tonight generally with budget depending what with the county what actions the county takes however because the state budget is not finalized anything could happen we could actually even see perhaps a reduction in our state revenue which would we would need to revisit I also am very cautiously optimistic and I have no data it's

[01:09:57] more of just a maybe wishful thinking that we may have some additional funds come our way from the if that were to occur then one we would 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 a 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 this decision so long as you really before

[01:10:32] 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 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

[01:11:04] 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 going to pick let's let's pretend we get two million dollars of additional from the additional funding from the state i would be bringing forward an action for the school board to do a supplemental request to increase the budget by two million dollars by recognizing the additional two million dollars from the state. That needs to go to the county. That's the normal process. The county could then

[01:11:39] grant us that and increase our budget and recognize the state funding, and then the school board is able to do what they wish with that $2 million of funding. 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 is consistent with their guidance and they adopt at a 105 million dollar level they could look to reduce that 105 by 2 million dollars there have been precedent depending on

[01:12:15] various situations where that has occurred where the state has allocated additional funding to lcps and lcps has not received those dollars as additional dollars again there's a lot of you different context to those situations so I just want to put all you know the caveats out there of what we could be looking at because this budget that dr.

[01:12:36] Spence has presented is in line with the county guidance of meeting their guidance we're not asking for a dollar more based on his see 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 dollars for LCPS to at this point 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

[01:13:13] retain that funding to offset this charge that is a strategy we could you know absolutely you know take for Monday and I again with us coming in at guidance I think I think the odds are in our favor that it would be supported thank you saying oh yes vice-chair Donahue thank you madam chair I have another question for likely for ms Willoughby so since we've already voted

[01:13:51] on mr. Svenson'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 c on was if you looked at the total revenues compared to the total expenditures

[01:14:27] it was showing a net loss of believe about five million dollars give or take the where we were coming up with the additional funds to cover the those 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 narrow that funding gap so instead of a five million dollar net loss now it's

[01:15:02] only going to be you know what 3.8 million net loss so it will just help to cover ongoing operations thank you 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

[01:15:42] members voting yes including miss Riccardi mr. Svensson sure enough myself mr. pepper dr. Rashid and miss LaBelle and two school board members voting no including Vice Chair Donohue and Mrs. Griffiths. With that are there any other amendments to to the base motion as previously amended? Ms. Riccardi. Thank you. I move to amend the budget by not increasing school meal prices by 20 cents per meal for school year

[01:16:15] 2026-2027 thus reducing revenue in the school nutrition fund by an estimated $700,000. Thank you a motion has been made by miss Riccardi is there a second second thank you miss Riccardi would you like to speak to your motion yes I would thank you so much you know while the 20 cent per meal may appear somewhat minimal for

[01:16:52] some families I think in in my district in particular it's it can really impact home budgets pretty significantly and along with the credit card fees that we've reduced. I think putting a hold on the meal increases at this point in time is a smart move for us. It really does make a big difference for our lower income and paid meal families. And as you'd mentioned earlier, we've seen an 180% surge in free and reduced meal applications this year.

[01:17:24] And we've also seen a significant rise in our unpaid meal debt. So I think by increasing that, we're just, I think we're just going to create more problems for ourselves. And I think it's a really good thing for our most at-risk families. So with that, I would like to support them in not increasing meal costs this year. Thank you. The motion was made by Ms. Riccardi and seconded by Ms. Chernoff. School board members, is there any discussion? Right. Seeing no discussion, we will

[01:18:03] 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. Clerk, please close and display the vote. That motion passes with eight school board members voting yes, including Ms. Riccardi, Mr. Svensson, Ms. Chernoff, myself, Mrs. Griffiths, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rasheed, and Ms. LaBelle, and one school board member voting no, Vice Chair Donahue. All right, let's see. Is there

[01:18:39] another amendment to the base motion as previously amended? Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget by removing the sustainability specialist from the budget for $196,000. Thank you. Mrs. Griffiths has made an amendment. Is there a second? Second. Thank you.

[01:19:03] The amendment has been seconded by Ms. Chernoff. Mrs. Griffiths, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. This proposed specialist would cost $196,000 a year. I would like to see, I felt like from the presentation, we were cutting custodians to hire this specialist.

[01:19:24] I would like to see more custodians, new sports programs that have been requested. We were shown all this information as far as the presentation on sustainability. Mr. Lewis had also pointed out that we received a $2.2 million check back for sustainability initiatives here at LCPS.

[01:19:43] Take note, the money has already gone to the LCPS 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.

[01:19:59] I have said in the past that our constituents and taxpayers are looking for the present and not how this helps our students achieve in the present. Getting the $196,000 back may also help in some of the programs we put through today, some of the other amendments that we have done today per Ms. Chernoff.

[01:20:20] So that's why I would like to amend the budget. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any discussion on Mrs. Griffith's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? I'm 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.

[01:20:40] So I had the money to cover them all. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Svinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak to the importance of the sustainability specialist, because the office is currently an office of one person and working not only to expand environmental teaching, outdoor learning, experiential learning in our classrooms, meaning partnering with teachers in all of our schools, helping develop curriculum, building programs at those schools that's focused on the student piece of the sustainability work.

[01:21:19] The office also works with our support services team to help manage our fleet in an energy efficient way to work with facilities to make sure our buildings are energy efficient. And this saves the taxpayer money in the end because we are saving money by making our buildings, our fleet, energy efficient.

[01:21:40] So I just wanted to say that this role is allowing that office to do more and in doing so, actually work for the taxpayer of Loudoun County and save money in the long run. - Thank you.

[01:21:58] - Mrs. Griffiths. - To add to that, 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. I just wanted to add that back, thank you. - Thank you, any further discussion?

[01:22:17] I'm seeing none. 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 miss ricardy mr svensson mishernoff myself vice chair donahue mr pepper and dr rasheed one member voting yes mrs griffiths

[01:22:53] and one member abstaining miss labelle thank you are there any further amendments to the base motion as previously amended. Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the budget by suspending adopted staffing standards for FY27 and removing ongoing and new investments as proposed in the FY27 Sion. Funding compensation for the collective bargaining agreement and the 20% health premium increase resulting in savings of $23,890,180 and a reduction

[01:23:30] of new 98.2 FTEs. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Mrs. Griffiths. Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry. Yes, Dr. Spence. Sorry. Just for clarity, I know it's up there, but because 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.

[01:23:58] What did I say? $23,000. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Thank you for catching that clarification. Second. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Chernoff. Mrs. Griffiths, would you like to speak to your motion?

[01:24:15] Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 seon 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.

[01:24:37] 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 big problems with the process, and I feel like there was no intention of really working with the board.

[01:24:54] School board members have to go into the weeds and 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, what would the budget look like?

[01:25:11] 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 step increases and 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.

[01:25:27] That is already set, 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.

[01:25:46] When hiring staff, it should be a case-by-case basis of needs, not wants. Hiring teachers to 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.

[01:26:02] 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 FY26 budget. With that, I am asking that we keep the costs that were already set, which is collective bargaining and the 20% for the insurance needs.

[01:26:22] We are looking to tax creases for the county. I am requesting that the budget holds FY27 expenditures at FY26 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.

[01:26:40] 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 FY27 budget does propose an almost $105 million increase, but it's really important to understand what that number actually represents, right?

[01:26:59] 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, 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

[01:27:36] 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 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

[01:28:13] 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

[01:28:44] record your vote. Clerk, oh, sorry, I'll wait. Thank you. No, you're great. Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion fails with eight school board members voting no, including Ms. Riccardi, Mr. Svensson, Ms. Chernoff, myself, Vice Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rasheed, and Ms. LaBelle, and one school board member voting yes, Mrs. Griffiths. Are there any further motions, or are there any further amendments to the base motion as previously amended? Wow, good work,

[01:29:22] everybody um i know one more um madam chair yes ma'am so we are out of balance for the operating fund okay we have four hundred and thirteen thousand eight hundred and eight dollars 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 15 to allocate that to the school nutrition fund so that the school so that

[01:30:00] 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 miss willoughby Four hundred and thirteen thousand eight hundred and eight four hundred and thirteen thousand eight hundred and eight dollars from the general operating fund to the school nutrition fund to help cover operational costs.

[01:30:32] All right. I have a motion to further amend the base motion as previously amended by Vice Chair Donahue. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I have a second by Mr. Pepper. Vice Chair Donahue, would you like to speak to your motion?

[01:30:54] Nope. Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on Vice Chair Donahue's amendment to further amend the base motion as previously amended? Mr. Pipper. The only question probably is for Ms. Willoughby. I know that we also right now are curious about sustaining our self-insurance fund.

[01:31:12] Would that be an option or not at all this time? The health self-insurance fund is set up a little differently 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 clerk please open the vote board members please record your vote clerk please close and display the vote the motion passes unanimously

[01:31:50] 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 Vice Chair Donohue made that motion at the very beginning of the meeting, and it was seconded by Mr. Svensson.

[01:32:17] So we have a motion by Vice Chair Donohue 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. Svensson. Is there any further discussion?

[01:32:34] Yes, Ms. McCourty. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our families across Loudoun work really hard for their money, And we owe it to them to spend it wisely. That's why I take our fiduciary responsibility very seriously.

[01:32:49] 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.

[01:33:09] And I remain committed to championing a 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.

[01:33:27] 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 actually paid for.

[01:33:44] 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 Loudoun County for years. But with all the impending 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.

[01:34:09] 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 numbers flatten out we're going to 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 print 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 this is Griffiths thank you madam chair

[01:34:47] and and with that I did mention that when we do the budget from now on we should have comparisons we should have the budget without the additional funds and we should have the budget with 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 want to

[01:35:27] 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 want to mention that any measure that undermines trust is doing a chance it risks harm it risks harm to morale collaboration 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

[01:36:05] um it's not from blind 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 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 appropriately. And so what that experience did was it reinforced in me how easily it is to

[01:36:44] 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 want to just say I support our administration staff. I support the budget process that we've done. And it is okay to look at revisions, but our focus right now as a board should be on strengthening trust and collaboration and not weakening it.

[01:37:06] That's all I'm going to 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.

[01:37:23] Board members, please record your vote. Clerk, please close and display the vote. The motion passes with seven school board members voting yes, including Mr. Svensson, Ms. Chernoff, myself, Vice Chair Donahue, Mr. Pepper, Dr. Rasheed, and Ms. LaBelle, and two school board members voting no, including Ms. Riccardi and Mrs. Griffiths.

[01:37:50] With that, we have concluded our business this evening and we will move on to adjournment. Seeing as there's no more business, the February 3rd, 2026 Loudoun County School Board meeting for the fiscal year 27 operating budget adoption is now adjourned.

[01:38:08] Please drive home safely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com