The 2024-2025 budget was again the focus of the latest Stafford Board of Education (BOE) meeting. After last year’s multiple budget referendums, the Stafford schools lost more than 20 full-time positions (which does not include the many resignations the district has seen, as staff leaves to go to towns with better pay). The result has been a loss of some physical education offerings, world language offerings, paraprofessionals, and more. With the consequences of a reduced budget in mind, Superintendent Steven A. Moccio has been doing his darnedest to communicate about the budget.
At the last January meeting, Moccio broke down the difference between the budget needed to continue providing the same level of services for another year and a proposed budget that takes into account some needed upgrades (and maintenance) as well as services and offerings the district would like to bring back — such as a gym teacher at the high school.
On February 5, Moccio presented the budget to the BOE again, this time with a few adjustments and an updated, student-focused presentation. He also unveiled a new slogan: “Our Students. Our Community. Our Future.” He pointed out that about 46% of the school district’s staff live in town, which means that nearly half of the salaries and benefits portion of the budget goes back into the community. “Strong communities have strong educational systems with strong backing, Moccio said, and also pointed out that good education systems typically lead to higher property values.
According to Moccio, an increase of a little over 3% is necessary just to maintain the status quo. A proposed budget asking for a 4.81% will allow the district more wiggle room to do things like bring back a school counselor and hire a pre-kindergarten teacher. These numbers are slightly different than what was presented at the last meeting, in part due to shifting assumptions about state funding and the work of Dr. Laura Norbut, Chief Academic Officer, who negotiated the price of Amplify CKLA materials — which allow the district to comply with the state’s Science of Reading requirements — from $72,000 to $45,000. The district also discovered it can use Title 1 money to pay for some of the Amplify CKLA materials.
Moccio stressed the importance of staying ahead of building maintenance and repairs, which he says have been put off for years — ultimately only being fixed when they break down entirely, and often costs more money in the long run. For instance, he told the board a long-throw projector for assemblies in an auditorium has needed to be replaced for years. The district’s current projector runs for about 15-20 minutes before shutting off. Five years, that projector would have cost about $17,000 to replace. Now, the same product costs about $27,000, according to Moccio.
Budgets are complex, especially for school districts where outside funding fluctuates. For instance, Moccio has repeatedly pointed out that a cost-sharing grant from the state is expected to be reduced by about $175,000 per year starting in 2026. This year, the district anticipates over $9.5 million in cost-sharing funds, which helps offset the costs of education in communities. Governor Ned Lamont is also looking at changing the way magnet and vocation-agricultural (vo-ag) programs, which could also increase how much money the district has to put out for students in those programs.
In an effort to put the Stafford school budget in a larger context, Moccio compared the proposed budget to those of other districts in its District Reference Group (DRG) and nearby districts. Only one of the schools had a lower proposed budget for the 2024-2025 school year, but quite notably, last year’s budget increase was less than half as much as the next school on the list. Neighboring Tolland had a budget increase of 3% last year, and is asking for almost $46,000,000 this year.
Now that the BOE has had more time to look at the superintendent’s proposed budget, they suggested they would be willing to approve an increase of 4% or “just a little under.” According to Moccio, getting down to a 4% increase for his proposed budget would be a reduction of about $245,000.
For their part, the BOE seemed to share the same general sentiments. They don’t want to lose anymore staff or services, but also aren’t going to commit to approving the Superintendent’s proposed budget.
Jennifer Biedrzycki said her “priority is to have marketable students” and pointed out that without more tax revenue coming in from sources other than property taxes it was important to determine what is a need and what is a want.
Erica Bushior said, “I definitely don’t want to see anymore staff cut.” Then she suggested the supervisor of pupil services might be a position the district could do without when the grant funding for the position expires.
Aaron Hoffman asked if the HVAC upgrades could be paid for with ARP ESSR funds. Moccio was not sure if that would be a permitted use, or if there were enough non-obligated funds to put toward it, but said he would look into it. Hoffman also said he would like to see a year without an intense audit process before determining whether or not the finance department really needs another position.
Two students spoke out during the public comment section. Calvin Bareiss said, “The music department as a whole has had a massive impact on my life.” He said that the budget is already strained and asked the board to keep the department 100% funded.
Talyah Greene said she is a three-season runner and participates in the music program. She reported that the sports fee has doubled, making some students unable to afford to participate.
Laura Lybarger, a former member of the BOE, said —after asking ChatGPT to do the math for her — she determined that the budget increases have not kept up with inflation over the past few years. “We are constantly behind and trying to play catch up,” she said. “Is that the future that you envision?” She suggested that if the BOE — and eventually the town — does not approve the budget, more cuts will end up being necessary. Sooner or later, she suggested, the only thing left to cut will be the major programs and sports and potentially secondary education.
Lybarger's comments might seem hyperbolic. However, when you consider that a 3.06% increase is required just to maintain the current level of staff and services and that, according to Moccio, the budget has gone up by just 1.18% a year on average over the past 10 years, more cuts could be necessary if the trend continues.
Comments