Greenwich BET approves $4.05 million cut to school operating budget after heated debate; FY26 budget passes 7-6

The Board of Estimate and Taxation on Friday approved a $4,048,621 reduction to the Greenwich Public Schools operating budget after several hours of contentious debate and public turnout, and later approved the town’s fiscal 2025–26 budget as amended by a 7-6 vote.

Proponents of the cut argued it was necessary to curb spending and protect taxpayers; opponents said the proposal would harm programs and risk noncompliance with state-mandated special education obligations. After extended remarks from both caucuses, the motion to reduce the Board of Education appropriation carried 7-6.

The vote followed a series of floor speeches by BET members. David Weisbrod, a BET member and long-time public schools advocate, framed the debate as a choice about sustaining excellence in Greenwich schools. “Our mission for our schools must always be to encourage, support, and, yes, fund excellence,” Weisbrod said, and warned that sweeping staffing cuts would risk the district’s academic programs. He cited the town’s growth in special-education enrollment since early 2019 and said, “Special ed … is a growing component of the school's budget, and providing appropriate learning services to this population is mandated by state law.”

Leslie Moriarty, another BET member, criticized the Republican caucus’s timetable and documentation. She said the budget committee did not approve formal guidelines this year and that the larger cut of $4,000,000 was not previously signaled to the Board of Education, the superintendent or the public. “Not until this week did the Republican caucus reveal their plan to radically overhaul the budget of our schools,” Moriarty said, adding that the Board of Education and superintendent had not identified a way to absorb the larger reduction without significant program impacts.

Republican caucus members said the reduction was driven by a need for taxpayer accountability and to seek efficiencies in areas such as substitute-teacher spending and entry-level pay scales. A caucus member who addressed the board described possible savings from addressing substitute-teacher days and pay-scale step structure, noting other nearby districts had altered entry steps. Opponents of the cut repeatedly disputed the arithmetic and asked to “see the work” behind the proposed $4,000,000 figure, saying the written documentation supporting that larger cut had not been provided.

Speakers across the aisle flagged specific budget line items that factor into the discussion: a Title I grant adjustment of about $622,000 that shifted some special-education staffing to the general fund; roughly $800,000 of professional-development expenses that had been funded from federal ARP-ESSER funds and are returning to the general fund; and administrative moves from earlier budgets (payroll and purchasing staff) that created a roughly $168,000 budgetary impact when they were reallocated during the year. BET members also discussed program-level numbers the Board of Education provided, including a pre-K classroom estimate of about $190,000, cost-avoidance programs at roughly $345,000 and a $200,000 academic-improvement item.

Members warned of downstream consequences if the town’s special-education obligations were not properly funded. Weisbrod said that, absent appropriate staffing, outplacement of students could rise from about 32 today to as many as 92, which he said could cost “as much as an incremental $10,000,000 a year.” Opponents of the cut also argued that substitute-teacher savings cited by supporters appeared unrealistic; one BET member summarized historical substitute spending and said the lowest recent annual total was about $1.1 million, making the $700,000 target improbable.

Following the school-budget vote, the BET approved several other line-item adjustments and motions during the morning session, including a health-insurance premium adjustment that the board recorded as a reduction to fixed charges and a $500,000 reduction in the town’s cash contribution to Nathaniel Witherell (a municipally affiliated nursing facility). Several of those measures were decided by narrow margins and multiple roll-call ties that were resolved by the chair.

The BET finished its meeting by approving the full fiscal 2025–26 budget, as amended, by a 7-6 vote. Staff reported the amended operating-budget total and bond authorizations that will be forwarded to the Representative Town Meeting for further review. Roland Geiger, the town finance official who provides budget numbers to the BET, provided an illustrative mill-rate projection based on the budget package; the board emphasized that the mill rate is set later, after RTM action and final grand-list adjustments.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to reduce Greenwich Public Schools operating budget by $4,048,621 — Approved 7-6 (outcome: approved). The motion was on the table from prior sessions; mover/second not specified on the record. - Adjustment to fixed charges for health-care premium changes (reductions totaling roughly $550,000) — Approved (chair recorded tie-breaking vote when needed; final margin reported in transcript as 7-6 after changes). - Reduce general-fund contribution to Nathaniel Witherell by $500,000 (and corresponding revenue-line change) — Approved 7-6 (chair tie-break noted). - Transfer $1,000,000 from capital nonrecurring fund to capital fund — Failed (6-6 tie; motion did not pass). - Bonding authorization language to permit amortization “up to 20 years” for certain school projects — Failed (6-6 tie). - Update salary ranges (2.75%) for management and confidential (M&C) employees as reflected in budget charts — Approved (final recorded 7-6 after tie resolution). - Final approval of fiscal 2025–26 budget as amended — Approved 7-6 (motion by BET members; forwarded to RTM materials).

What happens next

The BET’s approved budget package and the resolutions and bond authorizations will go to the Representative Town Meeting for review and vote. Any final mill-rate setting will occur after RTM action and final grand-list adjustments. Several BET members urged colleagues and the public to attend RTM committee meetings in May; BET liaisons will coordinate schedules and outreach to explain changes to the budget package.

Why this matters

Greenwich’s school budget is a central driver of the town’s operating budget and the subject of intense public attention. The narrow, partisan votes and repeated requests for more documentation underscore continuing disagreements over how to balance program needs — especially growing special-education costs — with tax-rate pressure and long-term capital commitments. The RTM’s upcoming deliberations will determine the final appropriation and any subsequent adjustments.