On February 19, 2025, Board of Education (BOE) Chair Sara Kelley and Interim Superintendent Dr. Laura Norbut presented the proposed 2025-2026 school year budget to the Board of Finance (BOF) in front of a full house at the Community Center. While Kelley and Norbut made their case for the 5.48% requested increase – with the three other board members who voted for the budget, Shana Boland, and Jennifer Biedrzycki* in the audience – the meeting often grew tense over related issues having to do with MOUs, and questions about staffing numbers. BOF Chair Steve Geryk asked that the rest of the BOE attend the public budget hearing on March 12, 2025, indicating that he wanted to know why they voted against it.
“Your budget reflects your values,” said Dr. Norbut, who pointed out that this budget aims to prioritize staff. She has said many times over the past couple of months that a 9.98% increase would be needed to continue the status quo. So, after detailing the many drivers that are increasing the budget, she also went over the steps she has taken to get the budget proposal down to a 5.48% increase.
The list of reductions is long, and the path is winding, as the BOE saw several versions of the budget, asked for some previously eliminated positions to be reinstated, and new special education needs meant that even more cuts had to be made. So, if you want a full accounting of what’s being cut, PLEASE READ THE FULL BUDGET PRESENTATION HERE and attend one of the budget conversations that will be coming up. (You can also read our story about it here.) As Dr. Norbut put it, the gist is, "We have nothing more to reduce this budget by except for our staff.”
Kelley told those present that “everyone in the district is already wearing multiple hats” and that the district is “at a crucial point.” Still, staffing numbers were on Geryk’s mind. As we reported last week, Geryk asked the BOE for a breakdown of their full-time equivalents in FY '23-'24 and the number of full-time equivalents approved for FY '24-'25, along with the actual number of full-time employees.
At last week’s meeting, Dr. Norbut said:
In ‘22-’23, the district had 320.6 FTEs, eight of which were covered in part or in full by ARP-ESSR funding.
In ‘23-’24, the district had 291.7 FTEs, losing 28.9 FTEs after budget reductions. Additionally, the district could not fill about 20 positions for all or part of the year, resulting in last year’s end-of-year surplus. The district spent $783,803 less for salaries in ‘23-’24 than was budgeted.
In ‘24-’25, the number of staff positions budgeted for went up to 293.7 FTEs, but the actual number employed is currently 284.2 FTEs. While the district has been able to fill some of the empty positions from last year, other staff left or retired during the school year and have not been replaced due to the current budget freeze and predicted deficit. Norbut said the district now operates with 36.4 fewer staff than in 22-’23.
The ‘25-’26 BOE approved budget includes 284.2 FTEs, as seven FTE positions have been eliminated. These are not necessarily the same positions as those currently open due to the budget freeze.
It’s also worth noting that ARP-ESSER funding has ended.
Geryk wanted to know why costs continue to go up even after last year’s budget increase and with so many fewer staff on the payroll. While it did not seem he got a satisfactory answer, much of the conversation throughout the night centered around increasing special education costs and decreasing reimbursements, salary, and benefits increases.
I reached out to Dr. Norbut and Chair Kelley to ensure I understood the budget increases, and Dr. Norbut provided helpful clarification regarding the current projected deficit: “When comparing the 23-24 Actual Expenses to the 24-25 Projected Expenses, the net increase (adjusted for increased revenues) is $2,053,045. This increase is mainly due to Salaries increasing $989,610 and Transportation, Tuition, and Other Services increasing $680,269. Special education cost increases, not including salaries, but including a reduction in Excess Cost reimbursement, totaled $654,250.” This information and the entire financial report are included with the agenda from the February 10, 2025 BOE.
At last week’s BOF meeting, Dr. Norbut noted that in some cases, the district could only hire staff at higher than budgeted salaries. Additionally, a new CSEA agreement and an increase in the minimum wage factored into the salary increases this year.
As for the ‘25-’26 proposed budget, Dr. Norbut noted these main drivers:
the increased costs for mandated special education services, the budget line item for which went up by 9.35%;
the cost of implementing the Effective School Solutions in-district therapeutic program, which is designed to lower special education costs by bringing some services back into the district ($80,000);
an unfunded mandate for HVAC evaluation ($55,000);
contractual increases for salaries (up 2.08%), benefits (up 4.01%), transportation, etc.;
approximately $90,000 of Town of Stafford requests for the BOE to pay.
This last bullet point leads us to the MOUs.
The town has asked the school district to pay 100% of the fee schedule for the salary/benefits for the SRO, 50% of the annual audit, and 50% of the 457b administrative fees. This agreement will be governed by several Memorandums of Understanding (or MOUs) between the town and the BOE. While the MOUs have come up at several meetings on both sides, the BOE has yet to sign them, as Kelley pushes for “transparency on both sides.” Kelley has asked to see where the money from the BOE is accounted for in the town side of the budget. First Selectman Bill Morrison said they are accounted for as revenue, but Kelley said the numbers do not yet add up.
Dr. Norbut says the money is included in the proposed budget and that cuts had to be made to accommodate these new costs. However, Geryk expressed concerns that if the BOF approved the budget before the MOUs were signed, the schools would have no legal requirement to pay that money. Kelley said she didn’t appreciate the implication that the schools would not pay what is owed and that Geryk was creating a controversy where there is none. Geryk noted that before the budgets are set, the BOF needs to know which side of the budget the $90,000 belongs to.
*The article initially said that BOE member Eileen Bartlett was at the meeting. She was not.