Middletown budget committee projects roughly $200,000 surplus; contracted substitutes and professional services drive several line deficits

During a meeting of the Middletown Board of Education budget committee, district finance staff said the district currently projects a surplus of about $200,000 for the fiscal year but identified several line items that will likely require appropriation adjustments for 2025–26.

Natalie, district finance staff, told the committee, “at this time, we're anticipating $200,000 as a surplus,” and said the figure is conservative because multiple purchase orders remain open as schools and departments finalize invoices.

The committee heard that a projected $226,000 deficit appears on the professional education services line, which reflects spending on contracted providers such as ESS and Soliant for services including speech and language and occupational therapy. Natalie said many of those services are provided by outside vendors and that “the rate is significantly higher” than the equivalent cost of hiring district staff.

Board members discussed a $68,000 projected deficit in long-term substitute pay, and Natalie attributed that shortfall to expenses charged through vendor-provided substitute services. Committee members asked whether the district should consider hiring in‑house “floaters” instead of repeatedly paying higher vendor rates; Natalie and Dr. Matos said the idea should be examined in next year’s budgeting process.

Other line-item highlights presented by Natalie included a roughly $95,000 surplus on lunch and duty aids (line 51713) and a nearly $800,000 projected savings on pupil transportation. Natalie cautioned that the transportation savings reflect a one-time credit stemming from a previously approved contract extension and “will not be in next year's budget.”

The packet also shows transfers: a $20,697 transfer to create match funds for a Department of Administrative Services grant to install a handrail at Kegwin School, and a set of facilities and athletics transfers that together total $54,872. Natalie described the transfers as line-to-line adjustments to address end‑of‑year needs.

Committee members asked about a roughly 20 percent increase in tuition paid to private providers; Natalie said three additional students recently moved into town and now require significant services, which is driving that rise.

Discussion: committee members and staff distinguished between one-time credits and recurring costs, and they emphasized the need to review contracted services versus hiring options when preparing next year’s budget. No new appropriations or ordinance votes were taken during the meeting.

Next steps: staff will continue to reconcile open purchase orders, provide more detail on transportation and other one-time variances, and bring recommended appropriation adjustments for the 2025–26 budget cycle.