Queen Anne’s County school leaders warn proposed state changes and rising costs will squeeze next year’s operating budget

School district officials reviewing a first draft of the FY2026 operating budget told the Queen Anne’s County Board of Education on Jan. 22 that a combination of a proposed state change to the statewide “Blueprint” funding calculations and routine cost increases could leave the district with a multimillion‑dollar gap unless the county or state provides additional support.

The presentation by district staff laid out revenue calculations, enrollment trends and a list of known and likely cost increases — including salary enhancements tied to multi‑year contracts, health‑insurance rate increases, the cost of state‑mandated programs and rising utilities and vendor fees. Staff also flagged a piece of proposed state legislation that would reduce the per‑pupil foundation allocation by $163, with downstream effects that would lower several other state‑calculated funding buckets.

The board was shown a work‑in‑progress revenue summary based on the draft governor’s numbers received by the district in mid‑January and noted that proposed legislation could reduce state aid to the district by roughly $1,300,000 if enacted as drafted. To model the county’s likely contribution, staff placed a $5,000,000 placeholder above last year’s county funding in the draft; that placeholder reflects public statements by county officials in recent budget cycles but is not an approved figure.

District staff emphasized the numbers were a “snapshot in time.” They said state aid calculations use September enrollment counts and multiple per‑pupil buckets (foundation, compensatory, multilingual learner, transportation, and others) and that the district’s fall enrollment is essentially flat. Because several state and local inputs remain unsettled, staff said the draft will be revised through spring as more final figures arrive.

Key figures cited by staff during the meeting included: - A proposed reduction of $163 per pupil that would lower the foundation per‑pupil amount from $9,226 to $9,063 and would reduce related buckets (compensatory, multilingual learner) that are calculated as percentages of foundation. - A staff estimate that the particular legislative proposal shown to the board would reduce state money by about $1,300,000 for the district if adopted as presented. - A district estimate that the county provided $6,200,000 last year and that staff were using a $5,000,000 placeholder (above flat) in early drafts to model county support this year; staff noted that the placeholder is not guaranteed and that budgeting on unapproved funds increases risk. - A salary‑enhancements marker of roughly $4,000,000 reflecting negotiated raises and the fixed costs that remain in future years. - A health‑insurance placeholder that staff said has risen in their projection from 7.5% to about 10%. - Furlough‑day savings from the prior budget cycle of about $350,000 per day (approximately $1.4 million for four district‑wide furlough days) used last year to bridge a shortfall; staff said that mechanism is a one‑time leverage and not a sustainable recurring revenue source.

Board members repeatedly asked administration what the district could do to limit layoffs or furloughs if revenues fall short. Staff explained legal and practical constraints: operating and capital funds are separate, many capital projects are bonded and cannot be repurposed for operating needs, and some budget lines (retirement, mandated programs) are not discretionary. Staff also discussed tradeoffs the board will face between retaining staff and preserving program investments.

Because the legislative language is still in committee, staff said they expect more clarity by April and urged the board to “plan for the worst, hope for the best.” Board members asked administration to prepare revised budget scenarios as soon as updated state and county numbers are available.

Board direction and next steps: Board members asked administration to produce an updated budget summary and trend data for subsequent meetings and to model scenarios without the $5,000,000 county placeholder. Separately (see related article), the board asked staff to produce detailed purchasing‑card and expenditures reports for review. Staff said they will keep the board apprised as the legislature and county budget process advance.

Ending: District staff framed the presentation as an early budget workshop: a working document to be refined. They said the board will receive updated revenue and expenditure estimates at future work sessions as state legislation, the governor’s final proposal and county decisions become firmer.