Talbot County schools present FY26 budget update as proposed state bills could cut foundation funding

Miss Jones, presenting for Talbot County Public Schools, described the district's proposed fiscal year 2026 operating budget at a public hearing and a later work session, saying the draft would be presented to the county council after the board's vote this week. She said the district is proposing an $85.8 million unrestricted budget (presented in January) that, with recent state revenue updates, would be reported as roughly $86.0 million and represents a net overall increase of about $3.4 million from FY25 (roughly a 3.6–3.9% year‑over‑year increase).

Jones said the budget increase reflects a combination of factors: a large decrease in grant funding the district had relied on (-$5.3 million), projected cost increases for staff compensation and benefits, 33 proposed new positions tied to the district's strategic goals, rising technology and device costs (more than $1 million), increased bus lease payments (+$241,000) and a $213,000 placeholder for a new school security program. "It's really, for us to be here to hear from the public, and get any input or comments or respond to," Jones said during the public hearing, describing the night as primarily a listening session.

The board and staff also reviewed updated state aid calculations from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). Jones said the MSDE update increased Talbot County's net state aid by about $562,000 compared with the projections presented in January. That increase included roughly $228,000 tied to prekindergarten student counts that were included in the official MSDE projection but had been conservatively excluded from the district's initial draft, and about $237,000 of additional community school funding associated with three schools newly joining the community schools program.

Board members and staff flagged a separate and larger risk: proposed state legislation introduced in January (House Bill 504 and Senate Bill 429, described in the meeting as the governor's "excellence in education" proposals) would, if enacted as drafted, reduce foundation funding tied to collaborative planning and delay or "slow‑roll" certain elements of the Blueprint for Maryland's Future. Jones and other staff gave rough estimates of the bill's potential effects on Talbot County: a $680,000 reduction to foundation funding next year tied to changes in the collaborative planning calculation; an additional estimated $200,000 loss tied to a proposed change reducing the state share of non‑public (nonpublic special education) tuition reimbursements from 70% to 50%; and a roughly $445,000 county cost increase if the state shifts a portion of pension costs to local governments. Citing those elements together, district staff presented a consolidated estimate of about $1,767,000 in negative impact to Talbot County schools in FY26 if the governor's proposals pass as written.

Jones emphasized that special education funding under the proposed bills would be carried as a fixed per‑pupil dollar amount (not a percentage of foundation funding) and, on that point, the district could see a modest increase (she cited about $13,000) under the draft. She also warned that the proposed changes to community schools funding would not reduce FY26 revenue for existing programs but would freeze the per‑pupil ramp‑up for newly qualified community schools in later years—delaying funding that local coordinators expect to use to expand services.

Board members discussed advocacy options and next steps. The superintendent and other board members described planned meetings with MSDE and participation in legislative advocacy days in Annapolis. "No. And, Miss Jones did a great job explaining this," one board member said while urging continued superintendent‑level advocacy. Several board members asked staff to proceed with a conservative approach: update the FY26 draft to reflect the additional MSDE revenue now on the books, but otherwise base the budget on current law and hold final adjustments until the county council appropriation and the final state budget are known.

Staff outlined a recommended action ahead of the board's formal vote: (1) incorporate the $562,000 in additional state revenue into the FY26 draft, (2) show the matching increase in community‑school program expenses where required, and (3) keep the district's county funding request otherwise unchanged from the January draft so it can be presented to the county council. Staff said the budget request to the county—excluding an estimated $1.05 million in interest and miscellaneous revenue—will approximate $60.7 million; the district plans to use about $800,000 from fund balance toward next year's budget as shown in the draft.

Board members asked staff to pursue three follow‑up tasks: verify an MSDE coding issue that showed Easton Middle School eligible for per‑pupil community schools funding in its second year (staff said they were already seeking confirmation from MSDE), continue to quantify the fiscal exposure if the governor's budget changes before the county vote, and pursue available grants and cost‑sharing opportunities for capital or safety items included in the capital request.

No final appropriations were made at the meeting. The board conducted the public hearing, approved routine meeting minutes and the evening agenda, and adjourned the public portion of the hearing; the board planned to vote on the FY26 budget at its next regularly scheduled meeting and to submit the requested county appropriation thereafter.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve work session minutes from Jan. 13, 2025: passed (voice vote; no roll‑call names recorded in the transcript). - Motion to approve the meeting agenda: passed (voice vote; no roll‑call names recorded in the transcript). - Motion to adjourn the public budget hearing: passed (voice vote; no roll‑call names recorded in the transcript).

What remains uncertain

Staff repeatedly noted that the district's exposure depends on actions still pending in Annapolis and on the county council's final appropriation. Jones recommended moving forward with the draft that reflects current law and recently confirmed MSDE revenue, while reserving the right to reopen the budget if the governor's proposal or the county's final appropriation requires further changes.