Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts 2025–26 operating budget amid commissioner concerns over outside contracts and nonprofit funding
Summary
The Waterbury Board of Education adopted transfers and the 2025–26 operating budget after debate. Commissioner Van Stone raised concerns about rental payments, Palace Theater funding and contributions to Waterbury Promise, and urged reallocation toward special-education support staff.
The Waterbury Board of Education adopted transfers to the current fiscal-year budget and approved the district's 2025–26 operating budget at its June 18 meeting after extended discussion.
Commissioner Orso moved the budget and the motion was seconded; the board recorded the motion, conducted discussion and the motion carried. The meeting minutes show the board approved several specific transfers earlier on the agenda, then voted to adopt the next fiscal year's operating budget.
Why it matters: The operating budget determines staffing, classroom services and district contracting for the coming school year. Several commissioners and staff framed the vote as finalizing the district's spending plan while acknowledging ongoing pressures in special education and personnel costs.
Key debate points: Commissioner Van Stone delivered an extended critique of several long-running district expenditures and nonprofit partnerships. She raised several concerns and numerical claims during the discussion:
- Rental and facilities: She questioned a rental arrangement for a Harper Avenue property and criticized the district's payment of property taxes on that rental, saying the rental cost approaches $150,000 annually and urged the district to seek city-owned alternatives or review the contract before its expiration the next school year.
- Palace Theater funding: Van Stone criticized a longstanding $250,000 annual payment to the nonprofit Palace Theater Group to support events at the Palace Theater (a city-owned facility), saying she believes that level of regular district funding is inappropriate.
- Waterbury Promise: She characterized recent Waterbury Promise funding as heavily supported by public dollars and said the district contributes $500,000 from its operating budget, plus an earlier $250,000 this year; she urged the nonprofit to pursue private fundraising and questioned the administration of scholarship dollars (these were framed as her observations and criticisms during debate).
- Special education staffing: Van Stone argued the district needs more behavioral technicians and paraprofessionals and said support staff vacancies have driven classroom strain; she stated that making BT and para positions more attractive would reduce turnover and noted a claim that one para left for another district for an extra $3 per hour.
Board and staff response: Other commissioners acknowledged the concerns and thanked finance staff for detailed budget explanations over recent committee meetings. Interim Superintendent Dr. Schwartz and finance staff noted progress in reducing vacancies and highlighted ongoing efforts to direct resources to early-childhood and special-education needs.
Board action and outcome: After discussion, the board approved the listed transfers and adopted the 2025–26 operating budget; the minutes show the vote carried with the standard recorded voice vote but do not list a roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt.
Ending: Commissioners requested further review of rental contracts and nonprofit funding arrangements; several asked that the administration report back to the finance committee on alternatives and vacancy mitigation.
