Carroll County school leaders present FY26 budget with $3.6 million shortfall; public urges preserving Outdoor School

The Carroll County Board of Education reviewed Superintendent McCabe’s proposed fiscal year 2026 operating budget during a public hearing and work session that featured dozens of public commenters urging the board to preserve the county’s long‑running Outdoor School program.

The superintendent presented the FY26 proposal as a balanced plan the district could submit to the county without requesting additional funding, but staff said state revenue changes and inflation left the operating budget structurally out of balance by about $3,600,000. Dr. McCabe told the board, “I presented to you as a board a balanced budget that does not ask for any more funding from the commissioners than they have already committed to.”

Why this matters: the proposed reductions include programs and positions that commenters and alumni described as formative for students. At the same time the district faces additional, separate requirements under Maryland’s Blueprint for education funding that staff say could add roughly $7,000,000 in required reductions and affect about 100 positions, a change that board members and staff said will be presented at the Feb. 12 meeting on fiscal compliance.

Public comment and the central tradeoffs

Parents, alumni, teachers and community members used the three‑minute public comment period to press the board to keep Outdoor School — commonly referred to in comments by variants of the facility name (transcript: “Hoshua/Hashua/Oshawa”) — in the FY26 budget. Shannon Marble, a parent, said, “STEM programs…are not just electives, they are vital to ensuring that every child has tools to succeed in today's rapidly changing world,” and several other speakers recounted personal and professional impacts from attending Outdoor School.

Julie Walsh, a PTO president, said families would consider paying added fees or fundraising to preserve the program: “Parents are encouraging you all to find creative solutions to finding funding for the program. They also expressed a willingness to pay fees to help support it if possible.” Other commenters — including a classroom teacher, a union representative and alumni who described career and civic outcomes tied to Outdoor School — urged the board to seek alternatives to elimination.

Budget mechanics and district numbers presented

Chief Financial Officer Burke and staff outlined the budget drivers: the district is holding the county revenue request at $7,200,000 as committed by the county’s operating plan, staff estimated roughly $9,300,000 in increases in nonrestricted operating revenue when offsetting other changes, while inflationary increases across utilities, insurance and benefits produced a total projected expenditure increase of about $12,900,000. That combination produces the roughly $3.6 million shortfall the superintendent’s draft attempts to close through targeted reductions.

Key line items noted by staff include: - A proposed reduction in the scope of the transportation reimbursement formula increase from 5% to 3%. - A planned phase‑in for utility increases using available fund balance; staff estimated utilities inflation at a level that contributes roughly $3,300,000 to cost increases when annualized. - Technology: the 1‑to‑1 device program for grades 3–5 is budgeted at about $1,000,000 in FY26; staff said suspending or reducing the 1‑to‑1 rollout could save roughly $1 million in the near term but would not eliminate recurring device and loaner replacement costs in later years. - Outdoor School: staff estimated the program’s district cost at about $1,100,000 annually; most of that cost is staffing rather than facilities, and some speakers and board members noted the program site is county‑owned.

Unions, compensation and legal limits

Dr. McCabe and staff told the board the district is contractually committed to a third year of negotiated compensation increases for three bargaining units, and completing those commitments would require approximately $3,000,000. The superintendent said she chose not to identify an additional $3,000,000 in cuts in her initial proposal because of the magnitude of other reductions already required; the board will need to weigh whether to reopen negotiations with the bargaining units if the budget cannot be adjusted to cover those amounts. Several board members repeatedly emphasized that renegotiation is a legal process that could include impasse procedures.

State funding uncertainty and the Blueprint

Staff and board members stressed that the district’s calculations rest on the governor’s proposed budget and that the Maryland General Assembly could change state funding through its session. In addition, the state Blueprint for education (referred to in the meeting as the “blueprint” and in discussion of CCR standards and school‑level funding) requires districts to change how dollars are allocated school‑by‑school; Dr. McCabe said the Blueprint fiscal compliance plan — which staff estimated could require about $7,000,000 in position reductions and extensive staff reassignments — will be presented at the February 12 board meeting.

Board options and next steps

Board members were offered a limited set of choices: accept the superintendent’s proposed FY26 budget as submitted to the county, modify the proposal and reallocate reductions/revenue requests, or request additional county funding. Several board members asked staff to prepare cost options and to model the impact of different choices for the February 12 meeting; the board also scheduled a special meeting for Feb. 18 to adopt its operating budget request to the county.

What was not decided

No formal votes or motions were taken during the work session; staff repeatedly noted that the Feb. 12 and Feb. 18 meetings will include the formal budget discussions and, where required, adoption votes. The district did not adopt any changes to contracts or programs at this meeting.

Ending

Board members thanked staff and the many public commenters and asked staff to return with itemized cost breakdowns (including a more detailed Outdoor School budget, fee scenarios, technology savings and the effect of honoring negotiated agreements) at the Feb. 12 meeting. Dr. McCabe and staff also urged community members who wish to influence state funding to contact county delegates in Annapolis; the board plans to publish guidance for public advocacy ahead of the legislative session.