Residents urge scrutiny of special-education spending and warn of rising tax burden

Two residents addressed the meeting during the public-audience period to raise concerns about school spending and the distribution of local tax increases.

Joan Coe, who identified herself as a taxpayer and gave a Simsbury address, said special education has grown into an industry of providers and argued that the town's special-education spending has escalated without sufficient changes to delivery models. "Throwing money at a failed system is not a taxpayer's responsibility to keep funding special education without any changes in the delivery of services to reduce costs," Coe said, and urged taxpayers to vote against budgets until a new model is developed. Coe cited multiple figures in her remarks (transcript figures were inconsistent); she said Simsbury's special-education budget has risen substantially over recent years and told the board she could not support the proposed budgets in their current form.

Laurie Boyko of Oakhurst Road said salary levels and recent revaluation-driven tax changes have left many homeowners facing steep increases. She listed several public-school positions and reported their salaries (as spoken): a superintendent "over $250,000," a high-school principal about $195,000, an elementary principal about $185,000, a director of equity about $180,000 and an athletics director about $165,000. Boyko said those compensation figures, together with prior revaluation effects, have contributed to wide variability in property-tax increases across town. "If this budget goes through, my taxes will go up a total over the last 5 years of 47%," she said; she asked the board to consider how the burden is distributed across taxpayers.

Context and limitations Both speakers spoke during the public-comment portion of the meeting; their remarks were appeals to elected officials rather than formal policy proposals. Several numerical figures cited by speakers (including past budget years and exact dollar totals for special education) were inconsistent or garbled in the transcript; the article notes their claims as spoken and does not adopt the numbers as authoritative.

Ending Board members and staff heard the comments but did not take immediate policy votes in response during the session recorded in the transcript. Staff and board deliberations later in the meeting addressed the budget drivers the speakers criticized — notably special-education costs, state reimbursements and staffing decisions.