Washington County staff warn FY26 could require larger county contribution under Maryland 'blueprint' funding

Washington County Public Schools staff told the Board of Education at a budget work session that enrollment gains and county wealth trends could push the district into the blueprint local-share calculation for fiscal 2026, potentially increasing the county's required contribution.

The presentation, led by district finance staff, laid out how Maryland's Blueprint for Maryland's Future funding is calculated, projected revenues for FY26, and the budget priorities staff recommend the board use as the basis for the superintendent's draft budget. Staff estimated additional state aid of roughly $12 million to $14 million under the blueprint and a county contribution increase in the range of $3.5 million to $5.0 million, producing a combined new-aid range of about $15.5 million to $19.0 million depending on how wealth equalization is applied.

Why it matters: Maryland's blueprint phases in over time and splits most per-pupil funding between state and local partners; where a county falls on the state's wealth-equalization scale determines whether the county's required local share is computed under the older maintenance-of-effort (MOE) method or the blueprint local-share. Staff told the board that county property-value and income growth in Washington County has recently outpaced statewide growth, which would reduce state support and increase the county's local obligation if trends continue.

Key details from the presentation

- Enrollment counts: staff reported an actual September headcount of 21,584 and a three-year average of 21,385. Because the actual September count is higher than the three-year average, FY26 funding will be based on the higher actual count, an increase of 207 students compared with the prior funding year, staff said.

- Per-pupil and targeted funding: staff described the blueprint funding "pyramid": a foundation per-pupil amount (FY25 cited at $8,789 per student) plus add-ons for categories such as students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, multilingual learners (ML), special education, prekindergarten tiers and concentration-of-poverty grants. Staff noted that 75% of targeted funding must be allocated to the school where the student is enrolled and that some grants (concentration-of-poverty) are treated as restricted funds outside the general fund.

- Wealth equalization and guaranteed tax base: staff explained how county wealth per pupil is calculated (using net taxable income, 40% of real property, and 50% of personal/business property reported to the state). For FY25 staff said Washington County's total wealth per pupil trailed the state average, which had supported increased state aid in earlier years, but local wealth has been growing more quickly recently. Staff also reported the guaranteed tax base grant for Washington County was about $7.8 million for FY24; that grant reduces the county's required local share but declines as county wealth increases.

- Revenue projections and uncertainties: using two scenarios (one in which the county remains in MOE and one in which it shifts to the blueprint local-share), staff presented the ranges above for new state and local revenue. They warned that the governor's upcoming budget and decisions by the General Assembly (including conversations about pausing or phasing components of the blueprint or career-ladder expansions) could change those projections. Staff said some prekindergarten ("tier 2") funding was postponed in FY25 and is not included in FY26 projections.

- Prior-year cuts and priorities: staff reminded the board that $7.02 million was cut between the superintendent's draft and the final FY25 budget. They noted a $4.8 million reduction in the district's OPEB (other post-employment benefits) contribution was treated as part of balancing the budget last year. The board's prior priorities (salary/compensation and retention; safety/security/mental-health supports; meeting blueprint requirements; and combating inflation) continue to shape how new funds would be allocated. Staff gave examples: FY25 allocations included roughly $8.86 million to salary/retention, $2.82 million toward safety/security/mental-health-related staffing and services, and $4.69 million to meet blueprint requirements (multilingual and preK teachers, a CTE apprenticeship coordinator moved to general fund, blueprint coordinator positions previously funded by grants).

- Cost drivers called out: bus replacement costs (staff cited about $140,000 per regular bus without a lift), increases in contract services and school resource officer pay (the district pays full salaries and benefits for SROs), and teacher pension contributions. Staff explained that local jurisdictions now pay the employer ("normal cost") share of teacher pension and that this cost is not fully accounted for within the blueprint formula, creating an expense the district must cover from the general fund.

Board discussion and process notes

Board members asked clarifying questions about how the blueprint counts raises (staff said step increases do not count toward the blueprint's required 10% teacher salary increase), how private preK provider funding compares with in-district preK (state allocations per eligible preK student pass through at the same per-student rate), and the timeline for budget adoption. Staff urged caution: with a compressed schedule the superintendent's draft is due Jan. 28 and the recommended budget will follow shortly thereafter so the district can present to county government. The board agreed to meet frequently in January to review updates.

Next steps

Staff said they will present additional detail on the 75% school-funding rule and examples showing how similarly sized schools can be funded differently under the blueprint. The governor's budget release and subsequent MSDE communications were identified as the critical next inputs; staff said they will update the board and adjust assumptions as needed before the superintendent's draft is finalized.