Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits on budget moves; supplemental appropriation briefly approved then reconsidered, BAT deferred to May 5
Summary
Board debate over a $26.5M budget appropriation transfer and a $10.54M supplemental appropriation exposed disagreements about accounting for substitute staffing (Kelly Services vs in-house), line-item detail, and county timing; the board ultimately did not finalize the BAT/supplement in this session and will revisit the items at the May 5 meeting.
The Baltimore County Board of Education spent more than two hours on April 21 debating an annual budget appropriation transfer (BAT) of $26.5 million and a supplemental appropriation request of $10.54 million to cover FY26 bargaining compensation and other shortfalls.
Finance staff said the BAT realigns approved budget lines to projected year-end expenditures (examples included moving funding for substitute services between payroll and contractual lines because of continued use of Kelly Services) and that the supplemental appropriation would increase spending authority to cover negotiated salary adjustments agreed to after the adopted budget. The supplemental request identified $2.74 million in additional state revenue and $7.81 million from fund balance as the sources.
Board members pressed staff for granular detail. "If we could get line-by-line detail and an updated BLT, that would be helpful," said Miss Domonowski. Finance director Mr. Tantliff explained how substitute staffing appears in state accounting (contractual when paid through an agency; instructional salaries when brought in-house) and why the office proposed the transfers.
On procedural votes, the BAT and the supplemental drew divided responses. The BAT did not secure clear final approval on April 21 and several board members asked to defer action until they could review detailed budget-line-transfer reports; staff offered to post the reports and to return the BAT and supplemental in tandem. The board initially approved the supplemental appropriation, but a motion to reconsider passed and a subsequent revote recorded a negative result, leaving the measures unresolved. Board leadership said the items will be brought back for consideration at the May 5 meeting to align with county timing and permit additional information to be added to the record.
Board members also debated whether to present the BAT and supplemental to the county council separately or together and discussed the risk of failing to complete the BAT on schedule (which staff said could create audit and accounting problems). Staff emphasized that the underlying expenditures are expected and that the BAT merely realigns budget lines to avoid end-of-year overages in specific activities.
Next steps: finance staff will provide the requested BLT and more detailed line-item backup; the board will revisit BAT and the supplemental appropriation at its May 5 meeting to enable a combined submission to county officials if required by county deadlines.
