Baltimore County board asks staff to cost one‑time retroactive payments after delay to negotiated raises

The Board of Education of Baltimore County on June 10 directed Superintendent Miriam Rogers to cost and consider including one‑time retroactive payments to school system employees in the FY 2027 and FY 2028 proposed budgets after the district delayed negotiated raises previously scheduled to start July 1, 2025.

Board member Nadine Hem moved the request, which the board amended and approved in a roll‑call vote. The final motion asks the superintendent to prioritize funding in the next two operating budgets for one‑time payments that, if fully funded, would be issued Dec. 1, 2026 (retroactive to FY26) and Dec. 1, 2027 (retroactive to FY27) and would equal the difference between the negotiated salary schedules and the actual pay realized by employees for those fiscal years.

The motion does not appropriate funds; it asks staff to cost out options and to include the request for consideration in the FY27 and FY28 budget submissions. The board passed the motion as amended by roll call (Yes: McMillan, Pumphrey, Young, Domonowski, Hem, Booker Dwyer, Harvey, Chikakalu, Lichter; Abstain: Frempong, Stoleski).

Why it matters: Superintendent Rogers and board members described a rapidly changing fiscal environment driven by federal and state funding uncertainty and county budget limits. Superintendent Rogers told the board that the system faces a combination of a slowed rollout of state Blueprint funds, possible changes to federal Title funding, and a county budget that did not fully fund the district's request. Rogers said the system is projecting a fund balance of about $65 million for next year and plans to use $35 million of fund balance, while also noting a $29 million shortfall relative to the board's original compensation request.

Board debate: Supporters of the motion framed it as a promise‑keeping step and a way to prepare concrete cost estimates for advocacy with county and state funding partners. Hem and other supporters emphasized that costing and planning are not the same as obligating funds now; they said the board needs to show it is prepared to make employees whole if future revenue becomes available.

Opponents and cautious members raised procedural and legal concerns about implying commitments without secured funding. Some board members said they preferred to pursue parallel advocacy to request additional county funding and to press county executive and council candidates to prioritize school funding. Several members also stressed the legal reality that the district does not control its full revenue base and that any final payments would depend on external appropriations.

What the motion asks staff to do: The superintendent was asked to calculate the cost of one‑time payments covering years 2 and 3 of the previously negotiated multi‑year compensation agreement, to include those costs as a priority request in the FY27 and FY28 budget proposals, and to report back to the board. The motion was amended during debate to explicitly make the proposal contingent on sufficient external funding ("if fully funded").

Context and next steps: The district said it will continue advocacy with county and state officials and will return to the board with cost estimates and recommended priorities. Board members and several public speakers — including union representatives and elected state delegates who addressed the meeting during public comment — urged continued advocacy to secure sustained revenue so negotiated compensation schedules can be honored on the timeline originally agreed.

Ending: The motion sets a formal budgeting and planning step; it does not by itself change pay or appropriate funds. The superintendent will return to the board with cost estimates and, if requested by the board, include the one‑time payments as a budget priority in FY27 and FY28 presentations.