Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects four amendment attempts to shift funds or use reserves
Summary
Four proposed amendments to restore instruction funds—by cutting technology transfers, using ending fund balance, or reprioritizing admin dollars—failed across the evening. Committee members questioned one‑time fixes and long‑term impacts.
During consideration of the proposed 2026–27 budget, four amendments aimed at moving money into instruction or prioritizing restorations were brought forward and all failed.
Amendment 1 (reduce technology transfers by $920,000 and add to instruction), made by Nick McWilliams and seconded by Garrett Wood, failed on a call for the question with Aye: 0, No: 14. Staff cautioned that the motion assumed static costs and that technology inflation could make the change unsustainable beyond one year.
Amendment 2 sought the same $920,000 shift at the function level (reducing transfers out of function 5000 and increasing function 1000). After discussion about feasibility and long‑term assumptions, it failed 5–9. Amendment 3 proposed reducing the ending fund balance by $1 million to add to instruction; this failed 2–11 with one abstention after staff warned about relying on unaudited monthly projections. Amendment 4 was a non‑binding recommendation to reprioritize $350,000 in administration to restore licensed or classified positions in that function; it failed 2–11 with one abstention.
Committee members who supported amendments argued they provided short‑term relief for instruction, while staff and other members raised concerns about sustainability, inflation assumptions, and the district’s multi‑year obligations.
