Board reduces superintendent’s budget plan
ernment to fund without significantly raising taxes or cutting other critical services,” Ball said. He noted that last year, a spending affordability advisory panel urged the school system to “understand the limited resources available.”
“Wants are important, but needs are critical,” Ball said. “The superintendent and elected county officials have agreed in the past on the importance of evaluating and prioritizing the needs identified in the school system’s budget, similar to other county agencies, within the funding realities the county faces.”
The two board members casting votes against the plan expressed concerns about funding realities. Before voting against the portion of the budget sent to the county, Delmont-Smalls said because of her “great belief in being careful with what we ask for, and to be realistic, I have to vote no.”
Howard is projected to have its revenue negatively impacted by the most recent federal tax overhaul within a few years, according to the county’s fiscal 2019 budget.
Cutroneo voted in favor of the requests from federal, state and “other” sources, but voted against the full request to the county.
“Though I can appreciate the benefits of asking for what we needed,” said Cutroneo in an email, “I ultimately felt that the ask was too ambitious for one year, especially given the forecasted county revenue.”
The task to approve the final budget rests with the County Council, though it has limited ability to make changes. If the budget is decreased by Ball, the council can only increase schools funding up to what was originally requested.
Ball is expected to present his overall budget, including education spending, by April 22. The council will adopt the final budget on May 29.
“Wants are important, but needs are critical,” Ball said. “The superintendent and elected county officials have agreed in the past on the importance of evaluating and prioritizing the needs identified in the school system’s budget, similar to other county agencies, within the funding realities the county faces.”
The two board members casting votes against the plan expressed concerns about funding realities. Before voting against the portion of the budget sent to the county, Delmont-Smalls said because of her “great belief in being careful with what we ask for, and to be realistic, I have to vote no.”
Howard is projected to have its revenue negatively impacted by the most recent federal tax overhaul within a few years, according to the county’s fiscal 2019 budget.
Cutroneo voted in favor of the requests from federal, state and “other” sources, but voted against the full request to the county.
“Though I can appreciate the benefits of asking for what we needed,” said Cutroneo in an email, “I ultimately felt that the ask was too ambitious for one year, especially given the forecasted county revenue.”
The task to approve the final budget rests with the County Council, though it has limited ability to make changes. If the budget is decreased by Ball, the council can only increase schools funding up to what was originally requested.
Ball is expected to present his overall budget, including education spending, by April 22. The council will adopt the final budget on May 29.