Supervisors and school leaders spar over FY26 asks as updated state aid narrows county–school split

Montgomery County and school system officials discussed competing priorities for the FY2026 budget at a joint March 17 meeting after state projections revised school aid upward by about $1 million.

County staff presented a revenue split that, after the revised state numbers, showed roughly a 50/50 split between county and school discretionary funding on the slide shown to the board. County Administrator Angie Hill said designated revenues account for a significant share of the budget and that real estate tax is the largest single source. She reviewed the schedule for finalizing the budget: the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to establish an advertised tax rate and budget at its next meeting (the board was told that session will start at 7:15 p.m.), a public hearing on the budget and tax rate is set for April, and tax bills are to be prepared for the June 5 billing; staff said tax rates must be set by April 24 for processing.

School leaders described increased state revenue projections and a combined set of requests in the school proposed budget. The school presentation listed about $7.7 million in proposed increases before accounting for the updated state aid; after state revisions the net local ask was smaller but still larger than the county’s preliminary contribution. The school system’s requested increases included districtwide pay actions (a proposed 3% across-the-board raise), changes to the teacher salary scale, additional positions for special education and 504 coordination (the transcript lists 10 special education teachers costing roughly $814,000 and approximately $193,000 for 504 coordinators including benefits), funding for school security officers or school safety officers where SROs cannot be found, and a proposed universal school meals program.

On school nutrition, presenters said making breakfast and lunch free for all students would require approximately $1.2 million drawn from the school nutrition revenues now collected from families who are not income-eligible for free meals. A school official said the cost could be roughly $1.2 million and explained that increasing participation and removing the stigma of means-tested free meals are policy rationales behind the request. Supervisors and school officials also discussed pending legislation in the General Assembly; one board member raised Senate Bill 1017, which they described as proposing limits on school collections for unpaid meal bills and noted that the bill was awaiting the governor’s signature. County and school officials also noted a broader risk if federal education funding were to shift: the transcript shows school leaders and county staff estimating roughly $5.2 million in federal grants supporting special education, Title programs and nutrition programs that would be difficult to replace if curtailed.

Budget tensions surfaced repeatedly. School leaders asked the county for approximately $5.6 million in local increases; county staff had included about $2.75 million in the county’s preliminary offer. Supervisors and some board members pressed the school side to prioritize within its request, pointing to competing county needs—several supervisors described one-time and start-up public safety costs for additional firefighters and deputies, equipment and administrative staffing for expanded coverage in the eastern part of the county; county staff cited a roughly $1.1 million figure for firefighter positions plus equipment and administrative costs. School representatives responded that some school budget items are state- or federally mandated obligations (special education staff, 504 coordinators) and therefore not strictly discretionary.

Other topics included proposals to compress the school salary step scale (school staff cited a one-time cost under $1 million to move from a 36-step teacher guide to a 15-step guide for recruitment and retention), competition for entry-level workers (school starting wages and county pay scales were compared), vacancy rates (school staff reported vacancies across categories including about 11 special education certificated vacancies and roughly 40 classified vacancies as of their most recent update), and the proposed use of SSO (school safety officer) positions as an alternate staffing path when recruiting fully trained SROs proved difficult.

No formal appropriations or rate changes were voted during the March 17 meeting; supervisors asked for further details and scheduled follow-up budget work sessions, including the Board of Supervisors’ planned advertised-rate meeting and the school board’s upcoming deliberations. School and county staff said they would circulate the budget presentation, post materials to board documents and continue joint budget talks in the coming weeks.

Speakers named in the discussion included County Administrator Angie Hill and school leadership who presented the revised school numbers; school nutrition staff (Michelle Knotts) and several supervisors raised questions in the public exchange. The record shows disagreement about the scale and timing of local contributions and repeated requests that each side identify and prioritize critical needs.

Because no formal votes were recorded on funding levels during the session, the transcript reflects negotiation and information-sharing rather than final decisions. County and school staff cited a shared calendar of next steps and said both boards would meet again as the FY26 schedule progresses.