[{"_1":2,"_96":-5,"_97":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6668606,"mediaKeyId","2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b","parentId",2218878,"title","Special-education costs and nonpublic placements drive sharp increases in FY26 draft budget","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3671000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b&start=3671&end=3671","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b/thumbnail_3671000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668606/Maryland/Special-education-costs-and-nonpublic-placements-drive-sharp-increases-in-FY26-draft-budget","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668606-4c9dab26ba69332ad238391b5131f3ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1774963885&Signature=K6ojhAugi2p5y~ry2RqT4M-2GxKYopQIee8HOWKhzweJol0E1tz6zn7pFORY1sKJvI4ojl-qMUNc1U4POd82M3kY6C2YWqEDDCpkUTugER14MK8QYA3NTCC8XApnHZQl8Pd5aLH~9EReNKR6bxVBwPOAf6eUAWpmejT4ATUSo8t2mQwX9uwkJYep0IPrzXKO59MfnHOeyTvewtfOB0W25JcmV1FqT7JgrYsfvuy6LvFU1YzKpZ5-8vRHAzpEz-5fxv-CsqxKBAgCHpre5zEGHMckUPAUMiCNTHEFQov6I8gMbxF2-E5uAcdLBFTx29J919hvs1CPmjyNuDa6gdZwFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cecil County Public Schools","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","Cecil County Public Schools officials told the Board that special-education placements and contracted services are a major budget pressure for FY26, and they walked members through the line items that reflect those costs.

Doctor Miller, the district special-education lead, described a small number of students whose out-of-county or out-of-state nonpublic placements require high levels of staffing and nursing supports; staff gave the example of a single student with two paraprofessionals and a nurse whose annual placement cost runs substantially higher than typical tuition-assistance levels. Doctor Miller said, “we have 51 students in nonpublic settings with roughly $4,200,000 in services” and that some cases can cost in excess of $100,000 per student.

Staff explained the current nonpublic tuition-assistance reimbursement process: the district pays an initial amount (about $31,000 up front was described) and then the state reimburses a percentage; under current practice the state covers roughly 70% and the district covers 30% of excess costs for many placements. Officials said pending legislation could change that formula (staff described a hypothetical transition toward a 60/40 split and eventual 50/50 in later years), which would increase county and district obligations.

Related-service provider shortages and contracting: board members were told the district increasingly relies on contracted therapists (PTs, OTs, SLPs and others) because hiring full-time staff is difficult; contracted providers are typically more expensive per hour. Doctor Miller and staff explained the district converts some contractors to employees when possible but contractual terms (including multi-year agency agreements) can limit immediate transfers without buyouts and can increase FY26 contracted-services lines.

Transportation and other costs: student transportation for special education (including specialized routes) and placements are significant line items. Staff noted other increases for interpreters, virtual service facilitators and assistive-technology refreshes.

Why it matters: special-education costs are a large, legally required part of the district budget and are difficult to reduce without changing services to individual students. The board asked for clarifications on case counts and cost drivers and staff committed to provide more granular reports on placements, caseloads and the statutory reimbursement picture.

Ending: No formal action was taken. Staff will return with detail on placement counts, reimbursement percentages and the fiscal impact of possible state-level changes to nonpublic tuition assistance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cecil County Public Schools - Budget Work Session - Feb 04, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","District leaders told the board that nonpublic placements, contracted related-service providers and specialized transportation are major drivers of FY26 costs; one case alone illustrates why nonpublic tuition assistance can run well into six figures.","taxTitle","Cecil County Public Schools, School Boards, Maryland","taxId",38256,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":42,"_43":78,"_45":78,"_46":79,"_48":80,"_50":81,"_52":82,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668612,"Board debates North Bay overnight program as Fair Hill day visits recommended for FY26 budget",8170000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b&start=8170&end=8170","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b/thumbnail_8170000.jpg","/articles/6668612/Maryland/Board-debates-North-Bay-overnight-program-as-Fair-Hill-day-visits-recommended-for-FY26-budget","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668612-fd0ef73f6317d8a7abdab1fbc557a878/orig.mp4?Expires=1774963886&Signature=jiwssiAdIVgmkwOw~Alc-qCAA25B5uRmaMGMivKxAKtY1DrtoEfRmeuhvJktl6HeSHeKFJ-sAKJamIoj0~HkUbyhIXkY0sA~L-Ap58qr6ZC7KB1diK5XMpfLlf48s3Ng~4XdRTwSbGKlkFUqDMcttREG-mPTP42lkbWujhYb-BCrJcjhOY7SE9K79FwbHhdWw03uFCx75eD78B70yfMhEK9oCFwtIJIsYRNDSFmrLRiPk9P2NHILZEwPyjtWs0MDl7ggcNfwWdlb97aToEI01ESY-aOrX3j9o59AsAC29WQmRtdCuO42wP4xft3reapmNOje2WbumIk8hy8mrtyrMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","School leaders presented the board with a line-item breakdown for two longstanding environmental-education partners that serve Cecil County students and prompted questions about cost and equity.

Doctor Hammer, speaking for the division of education services, explained the district’s relationship with both providers and the relative cost. Staff said Fair Hill Nature Center programming for K–5 is budgeted at roughly $18 per student, while the North Bay residential program for sixth grade as proposed approaches about $350–$400 per participating student.

Board members pressed for options. One member said the board should consider whether the district wants to continue an overnight North Bay program at the proposed per-student cost when other staffing needs are urgent; another suggested exploring shorter trip formats or “one day in/one day out” hybrids. Doctor Hammer said North Bay representatives are “willing to adapt” and are working on alternate proposals.

Why it matters: Fair Hill serves nearly all K–5 students and is comparatively low-cost; North Bay is more resource intensive and focused on a single grade with an overnight component that raises transportation, chaperone and logistical costs. Staff said Fair Hill’s recent request would add roughly $13 per student compared with historical rates.

Equity and payment options: Board members discussed pay-to-play approaches and targeted support. Staff noted that, in practice, schools and parent organizations frequently cover fees for students who cannot pay; they also said the district would prioritize covering fees for students eligible for free or reduced-price meals if a pay-to-play model were considered.

Next steps: Doctor Hammer said North Bay will return revised options for FY26, including shorter or lower-cost models. Staff will prepare a final FY26 request and recommend how to treat Fair Hill and North Bay funding depending on county and state revenue outcomes.

Ending: The board did not make a final decision; members asked for alternatives from North Bay and signaled stronger willingness to preserve or modestly increase Fair Hill funding given its broader reach and lower per-student cost.","Board members questioned a proposed $350–400 per-student price for the North Bay overnight environmental program for sixth graders and signaled stronger support for expanded funding for Fair Hill Nature Center’s one-day K–5 visits.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":42,"_45":89,"_46":90,"_48":91,"_50":92,"_52":93,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":94,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":95,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668615,"Cecil County school leaders present FY26 budget with $6.1 million gap and state funding uncertainty",257,257000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b&start=0&end=257","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218878-66bda22b699f42fdb02917182987fa1b/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6668615/Maryland/Cecil-County-school-leaders-present-FY26-budget-with-61-million-gap-and-state-funding-uncertainty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668615-8cb44dbbb3dc8ca8908bb1e293a391da/orig.mp4?Expires=1774963886&Signature=WJU4q92ie4xtVFeN4iV43j0YljwL0aBRbGhae5yc72QCeXAAn3QAP8E2s3I6auH0oe1gkQ~L-yFnPbfeG7FNI4QRYJ7sd8mT9QsH5Z9j71JBs6iGKGLLEJZr2GGoroPK~JW48BILRb2yKc0NEKsMvN7WMYfTqr2sS~mctIl71DYKPNkqIAx6P5LzzS9M9oFDhdywY1Q8-g9BX4qMpgNRNGdgqreqnsM8zhe9IFSYWVWJ9qDzqTaSrQo2GAbYClLlr-ST7Vk88P~kAQlkA0H5BUvtXrDewb1LfjBibUNrliULK9dLEBqSzJJgF6uUFL1SStoLcD5yFsfoqN7SU1trKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Education of Cecil County heard a preliminary review of the draft FY26 operating budget on Feb. 4, as Superintendent Doctor Lawson and business services staff outlined projected revenue changes, key cost drivers and next steps for the board.

Doctor Lawson said, “we're expecting a minimum of a $5,400,000 increase” from the state and noted a simultaneous local increase “a minimum of $1,600,000 from the county,” adding that the combination produces “a $6,100,000 increase in state and local revenue combined.” He warned that pending state legislation affecting the foundation formula and components of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future could reduce the apparent increase and that the county executive may need to submit a budget before some state laws are final, requiring later adjustments.

The board was shown line-by-line detail for departmental budgets and told that business services prepared the roll-up and the supporting pivot-table detail for review. Ms. Sopa of business services explained how the binder maps to the slide roll-up and where members could find granular line items (for example, information technology detail on page 28 of the packet).

Why it matters: the draft budget is balanced around estimated state and local revenue that remain subject to change. Officials said they expect to return to the board with specific recommendations once county and state allocations are finalized; in the meantime they will prepare tiered reductions so the board can act promptly if revenue falls short.

Major budget drivers and uncertainties:
- State and local revenue: Doctor Lawson described an expected combined increase of roughly $6.1 million but cautioned that changes to the Blueprint (including a possible pause of the “collaborative planning time” component) could reduce the net funds available. He noted that the collaborative planning time line item equals about $163 per student (roughly $2.3 million) and that concentration-of-poverty set-asides total about $1.9 million and are restricted to specified uses.
- Pension and BRFAA: Board members asked whether a projected pension increase (discussed in county budget reconciliation/BRFAA processes) would be charged to the schools’ local share; Doctor Lawson said that remains unclear and that the school system has heard conflicting information.
- Use of fund balance: business staff said the FY26 plan assumes use of fund balance and that staff will bring tiered options for reductions if actual revenue is lower than the draft.
- Major recurring costs: salary/fixed charges, health care, and special education placements were identified as the largest portions of the budget and the most difficult to reduce without affecting staffing or services.

Board process and next steps: staff described a schedule that would include additional review sessions and a vote by the Board on Feb. 26, after which the approved request is sent to the county. If counties or the state revise allocations later, the system may need to reopen its budget for adjustments. Staff said they will prepare prioritized, tiered reductions keyed to revenue shortfalls so the board can act quickly when final county and state numbers arrive.

Ending: Board members asked clarifying questions about health-care assumptions, potential county support, and how specific restricted grants (for example, concentration-of-poverty funding) are reflected. Staff committed to returning with more detailed scenarios tied to specific revenue outcomes.","Superintendent and business services staff told the Board of Education of Cecil County that the FY26 draft operating budget includes projected increases but remains exposed to unsettled state legislation and potential county-level changes, leaving officials prepared to present tiered reductions if revenue falls short.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Special-education costs and nonpublic placements drive sharp increases in FY26 draft budget

Board debates North Bay overnight program as Fair Hill day visits recommended for FY26 budget

Cecil County school leaders present FY26 budget with $6.1 million gap and state funding uncertainty