Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates $300,000 cut to Board of Education operating increase; superintendent cautions against budgeting on assumed turnbacks
Summary
Town Council members proposed a motion to reduce the Board of Education operating increase by $300,000; supporters cited a 10‑year average of year‑end BOE budget turnbacks, while Superintendent Dr. Lutzky said the district cannot budget assuming that money will be available and warned special appropriations are a last resort.
Council members raised a proposed motion on March 27 to reduce the Board of Education’s FY26 operating budget increase by $300,000. Speakers advocating the reduction said the move would bring the town closer to a longer‑term target set by the board of finance, and cited a 10‑year historical average of carry‑back or turnbacks from the Board of Education budget to the town.
Proponents described the step as “right‑sizing” the request so taxpayers are not charged for a cushion the BOE has historically returned; they also noted the board of finance had sought reductions in the $500,000–$650,000 range and that a prior $300,000 reduction had already been included at the board of finance level, so the new proposal would add to that amount.
Superintendent Dr. Lutzky, who addressed the council, warned that the district cannot responsibly build its budget assuming a $300,000 reduction will be available. "I can't do that. I can't. It's not. Right? I have to build a budget around what's there," Dr. Lutzky said, adding that his preference is to avoid special appropriations because the district’s goal is to manage within its appropriation and not return to the town for supplemental funding unless there is an unforeseen emergency.
Council members raised process questions, including how often the BOE returns funds and whether recent COVID‑era surpluses should be excluded from multi‑year averages. Some members said excess funds returned by the BOE in prior years indicate room to trim the requested increase now; others worried about relying on end‑of‑year turnbacks and emphasized that a special appropriation process can be lengthy and uncertain.
Dr. Lutzky said the largest non‑discretionary budget drivers are salaries and benefits (about 81.5% of the district budget as presented) plus transportation, energy and tuition; he said additional reductions would require looking at non‑mandated programs (athletics, clubs, materials) and making targeted choices. He also noted that some of the first $300,000 identified by the board of finance came from turnover and stop‑loss changes, and that adding another $300,000 would bring total reductions to about $600,000 compared with the BOE’s request.
Council members and Dr. Lutzky agreed to continue discussion at the council’s next meeting and during public comment sessions before the final budget vote.
