Board, staff and community outline budget priorities: behavior techs, more GATE teachers, SROs and a $1 million food-service request

Trustees and school leaders spent more than an hour laying out priorities for the fiscal 2026 budget, identifying staffing and program requests they say address student safety, literacy and career-technical offerings while finance staff warned the system faces a multi-million-dollar shortfall.

Superintendent Dr. Townsville led the discussion and described a set of board priorities that included adding behavioral support staff in elementary schools, expanding gifted-and-talented (GATE) coverage, reconsidering assistant principal allocations at some high schools, funding ROTC/CTE instructors and improving food service. Chief financial staff provided expenditure figures and cautioned the board about the district’s fiscal position.

Staff told the board the system currently has roughly 76 open positions — described during the discussion as 42 support-staff vacancies and 34 certificated (professional) vacancies — and that some classroom roles are being covered by long-term substitutes. Finance staff reported that year-to-date expenditures as of Dec. 31 were $133,790,926.

Key board priorities and cost details discussed

- Behavior technicians: Board members requested a behavior technician assigned to each elementary school. Staff said the district now has five behavior technicians that float between buildings and five-and-a-half behavior specialists; trustees described a target of 12 dedicated behavior technicians (one per elementary school). Staff estimated the cost for 12 behavior technicians, including salary and benefits, at about $572,000.

- GATE teachers and literacy supports: Trustees pressed to expand GATE coverage in elementary schools and asked for at least two additional GATE-certified teachers to allow broader coverage. Several trustees also said literacy specialists or reading/intervention staff should be considered alongside GATE positions, noting different training and roles for those positions.

- School resource officers (SROs): Board members discussed adding SROs to be more fully embedded in schools; staff said SRO funding is part of a memorandum of understanding with the Calvert County Sheriff’s Office and requires coordination with county budget requests. The meeting recorded a per-SRO cost estimate (including a vehicle) of about $125,000 and staff said seven additional SROs would create an exposure of approximately $875,000.

- Food service: Staff requested a $1 million transfer from the general fund to the food-service enterprise fund to increase on-site cooking and local sourcing and to raise meal quality without increasing prices for families. Staff said the district’s food-service enterprise fund currently holds about $4,000,000 in reserves and reminded the board that the system’s policy now treats the fund as self-sustaining, though the state does not require that.

- Other priorities: Trustees discussed adding instructional staff such as literacy specialists, greater support for CTA (career and technical education) programs, possible IT consulting hours rather than a full-time hire, and enhancements to time-and-attendance and public-information-request (PIA/FOIA) software.

Budget context and risks

Board members and staff repeatedly noted a structural gap between proposed spending and expected revenue. The superintendent said the district was about $9.5 million in planned expenditure over revenue in the current proposal and warned of a separate historic shortfall of roughly $22.5 million tied to changes in state funding formulas. Staff also said a proposed change to a state formula could reduce state aid to the district by as much as $6 million if enacted.

Several trustees emphasized that any use of fund balance should be for one-time strategic investments, not recurring personnel costs. The board and finance staff agreed to seek further modeling about projected year-end fund balance and to reconvene with refined budget options. Finance staff agreed to provide estimates of the year-end fund balance and other projections requested by trustees.

Public comment and board response

Resident Mike Schishler asked the board not to promise the county commissioners the district would not seek additional money and urged the board to base the budget on students’ and staff needs, noting Calvert County’s relative wealth rankings and saying, "If you believe that more staff is needed for the safety and academic success of our students, then don't promise a budget to the Board of County Commissioners in advance." Trustees acknowledged the complexity of the process and thanked staff for prompt responses to budget questions.

Next steps: staff will cost out the board’s prioritized items, provide fund-balance modeling and revised budget materials, and return to the board for further direction before final submission to the county budget process.