Board of Education asks Wicomico County for $57.8 million in FY27, seeks Tier 1 weapons-detection start

Wicomico County Board of Education officials presented their proposed FY27 request to the county council on May 12, saying the figure was rebased on enrollment to $57,762,515. Brian Reager, the district’s chief finance operations officer, said the FY27 submission was built by starting from the prior-year maintenance-of-effort baseline, adding a 12‑month consumer price index adjustment and a 2% investment to maintain programs.

“...we did rebase it on enrollment. And you then see that number of 57,762,515,” Reager said, describing the arithmetic behind the request. Finance director Pam Olin told the council the total exceeds the state’s required share after the additional percentages are applied and noted that Maryland reporting terminology has shifted from MOE to a ‘local share’ measure.

Superintendent Micah Stauffer and finance staff outlined two specific capital items council had asked about. First, Fruitland Intermediate’s HVAC project: the council previously approved $1.9 million and staff now estimate an additional county share of $7.0 million, bringing the county portion to $8.9 million after the Board of Education revised its estimates downward from an earlier $9.4 million projection.

Second, the district proposed a phased weapons-detection program. Stauffer said full funding for all three tiers would require roughly $1,650,000 in one‑time equipment costs and about $3,200,000 in recurring staffing costs. The county executive’s recommended budget includes funding equal to Tier 1 capital and roughly half of Tier 1’s operating cost, which the district said would allow it to "get the equipment in, begin training, and really get a kickoff of the full, fledged weapons detection program in January '27." District staff described campus security positions, training through the Maryland Center for School Safety and vendor training for equipment operations.

Council members pressed for details on whether the additional costs for later tiers would be pushed into future CIP years; staff said they will include those costs in the next CIP update, but the out‑year columns adopted with the FY27 CIP will reflect only the current year to avoid voluminous immediate changes. Reager and Olin also explained that some operating amounts in department summaries include state pass‑throughs (for example, teacher pension payments and pre‑K costs) that are paid directly to the state and therefore inflate department operating totals relative to appendix allocations.

The district asked the council to fund Tier 1 equipment and start personnel training and implementation in January 2027; council discussion focused on sequencing for out‑year capital and operating costs, and on ensuring the public and council understand the distinction between local share and the state reporting measure. The presentation closed with staff offering to provide more detailed CIP and staffing schedules to the council on follow‑up request.

The council did not take a formal vote on any Board of Education-specific appropriation during the work session; the district’s presentation will be part of the broader FY27 budget review process.