Calvert County board approves FY25 year-end amendment and adopts FY26 budget after extended review

The Calvert County Board of Education on June 30 approved a year‑end amendment to its fiscal 2025 budgets and voted to adopt an initial fiscal 2026 budget after an extended discussion about changes between versions and the use of fund balance.

Scott Johnson, the district's chief financial officer, presented the FY25 amendment and the FY26 proposed initial budget. Johnson told the board the FY25 amendments reflect updated information for the general fund (unrestricted and restricted), the food service fund and the school construction fund and are presented “in accordance with Calvert County Public Schools policy 50 five‑fifteen.” He cautioned that year‑end accruals — revenue and expenditures that post within 60 days after June 30 — are not final until the closeout process, and said, “The budget reflects my best estimate of the total interest earnings for FY25, and that's a little over $1,600,000.”

Board members voted to approve the FY25 year‑end amendment before taking up the FY26 proposal. A motion to approve the FY25 amendment was seconded and approved; the board chair announced the motion carried 5‑0.

Why it mattered: The two votes set the district's starting spending plan for the new fiscal year and determine how much of the district's fund balance will be used for recurring and one‑time costs. Board members repeatedly asked staff for a clearer, line‑by‑line reconciliation between the packet shown at the June 12 meeting and the updated packet the board considered on June 30.

Discussion and key changes

Board members pressed for a granular comparison between the June 12 and June 25 versions of the budget. Several members said the spreadsheets in the packet and the PDFs were hard to read and asked staff to provide an Excel file showing per‑account variances. Johnson and staff responded that the last‑minute updates included newly negotiated compensation agreements, updated retirement and wage projections and newly announced retirements and resignations that changed wage and salary projections.

Johnson summarized the largest net changes that produced reductions in the FY26 proposed budget compared with earlier drafts: the shift of teacher retirement costs to the county (which he said reduced the district's FY26 expenditures by roughly $1.25 million in the proposed budget), newly included estimates for wage‑and‑salary lapse and leave‑without‑pay (LWOP) savings, and reductions tied to preschool private‑provider payments after a state funding change. Johnson also noted increases that offset some reductions, including the return of ESSER‑funded items to the general fund (notably “future ready” devices) and higher recurring digital license costs.

Numbers and examples cited in the meeting include: - Teacher retirement: staff estimated earlier a $1.5–$1.6 million liability; Johnson said he removed about $1.25 million from the FY26 expenditure totals in the proposed budget because the county will cover a portion of that cost. - Wage and salary lapse and LWOP: staff added estimates for expected savings when positions are vacant between incumbents and for unpaid leave; LWOP savings were described in the meeting as roughly $650,000 in the budget projection. - Interest earnings: Johnson said interest earnings for FY25 were estimated “a little over $1,600,000.” - Digital licenses: Johnson identified a proposed increase of about $467,732 that had previously been paid with ESSER grant funding and is now proposed in the general fund for FY26. - Future Ready devices: the packet lists $3,560,038 for the Future Ready computer initiative; staff clarified this belongs in category 02/2005 (instruction) rather than the 02/2001 administration category where it appeared by mistake in one spreadsheet. - Pre‑K private providers: the proposed FY26 budget included $250,000 for private pre‑K providers but Johnson said that amount is likely to be less after further review.

Board concerns and procedural requests

Several board members said they were uncomfortable approving the FY26 budget without a clear reconciliation of the $1.1 million net change between the June 12 and June 25 packets and asked for an immediate Excel breakdown of per‑account changes. Board member Miss Goshorn said she could not “in good conscience, vote on this budget” without the requested detail. Other board members raised caution about the district's use of fund balance; in the meeting a board member cited a planned use of roughly $11.7 million of fund balance for FY26 and noted last year's request to use $25 million (the district ultimately spent about $17 million).

Other items noted during the budget discussion

- School resource officers: the district and Calvert County Sheriff's Office plan to phase in SROs; staff said the current plan adds two SROs this year rather than seven previously discussed, with a multi‑year phase‑in tied to the MOU with the sheriff's office. - Bus cameras: Johnson confirmed bus camera hardware had been received and was being installed. - Purchase orders: a $30,000 blanket purchase order for Bowie State University was identified as a tuition‑reimbursement/continuing education PO for staff, with about $21,700 remaining on that PO.

Votes at a glance

- FY2025 year‑end budget amendment — approved (board motion, seconded; chair announced “Motion carries 5 0”). - FY2026 initial budget — motion and second on the floor; the board voiced approval and the chair moved forward with the agenda. Staff and several board members said they would provide additional detail after the meeting and the board retained the option to approve future amendments during the fiscal year.

What comes next

Johnson agreed to provide board members with the requested Excel comparisons and to clean up tab and category errors flagged during the meeting (for example, moving Future Ready computer costs into the instruction category). Board members reminded staff they can request budget amendments during the year and signaled they will continue follow‑up questions in the weeks after the vote. Dr. Townsley, identified in the meeting as the superintendent, urged board members to schedule office hours or one‑on‑one reviews if they want deeper explanations of line items.

The board moved to brief closing comments and adjourned after routine remarks.