Southington superintendent presents $123 million budget; asks for 2.4 FTEs to support new middle‑school schedule

Superintendent Steve Modancia presented the Southington Board of Education with a proposed $123,000,000 operating budget that would add 2.4 full‑time equivalent positions to support a new middle‑school schedule and make a series of reductions and reclassifications intended to limit the district’s request to town officials.

The budget proposal would not fund a previously proposed summer‑school expansion and would shift major projects and equipment requests out of the operating budget where possible; the superintendent said the district’s one‑time equipment asks total $396,000. “We are only requesting 2.4,” Modancia said, explaining the smaller personnel request reflects reallocation of existing staff and expected attrition rather than a large hiring push.

Why it matters: the proposal affects roughly 6,200 students and about 1,200 staff across 12 district buildings and carries implications for special education spending, transportation contracts, technology replacement, and short‑term town financing decisions.

Modancia told the board the 2.4 FTEs are targeted to create a ninth team in the middle schools and to increase academic teachers’ contact time by reclaiming minutes from encore subjects. He said that without the schedule change the district would have sought about six teachers; with course and elective adjustments the net additional FTE need is 2.4. “The add is in addition to those 2.4 is to create the 9th team,” Modancia said, describing the reallocation and schedule changes that reduce the net new hires needed.

The budget reflects several specific reductions and reclassifications: the district removed five vacant non‑certified positions (largely paraeducators and applied behavior analyst roles), eliminated funding proposed for summer school this year, returned four teacher positions to nexus funding rather than including them in the operating budget, cut telephone and certain supply lines, and eliminated three buses while noting route consolidations would be required. Modancia said the district has five long‑standing vacancies it did not fill as part of the reductions.

Special education funding was a central theme. The superintendent described the district’s approach to excess‑cost reimbursement — the state program that reimburses districts for unusually high individual student costs — and the uncertainty around the rate. “We know we’re supposed to get up to 81% in reimbursement, but after they take the average … usually you get around 70%,” Modancia said, adding that budget staff had originally proposed using 65% as a conservative assumption. He told the board the state’s current allocation will yield a lower rate than anticipated in the district’s early calculations and that the district will continue to advocate for legislative changes aimed at improving reimbursement for in‑district programs.

Board members asked for and received additional detail: the special‑education office currently budgets out‑of‑district tuition with offsets from excess‑cost reimbursement and in‑district excess‑cost revenue. District staff said roughly 55 students were reflected in the out‑of‑town tuition line this cycle and that the district based its revenue estimate on the most recent state reimbursement percentage (cited during the workshop as about 62%). Modancia and special‑education staff cautioned that the rate can vary based on statewide claims and available funds and that several legislative proposals are under consideration.

Transportation was another driver of increases. The proposed student transportation budget includes the new contract awarded after an RFP process and combines regular and special‑education routes, plus services for students eligible under the McKinney‑Vento Act. The superintendent said special‑education and out‑of‑district transportation costs rose in the budget because the new contract and identified student needs were higher than prior years. The board asked for year‑to‑date run rates and tracking between in‑town and out‑of‑town transportation lines; staff said they would provide those figures to the board and include them in the questions grid.

Technology and one‑time federal funding were discussed at length. Mr. Savage (technology staff) described the district’s five‑year refresh plan for infrastructure (switches, access points) and lab replacements and noted past ARP/ESSER and ECF funds had paid for an initial device distribution. Modancia said the district had pursued grants to support device and infrastructure replacement; those federal one‑time grants are no longer available in the same form. Staff also explained that E‑Rate supports network hardware and connectivity (with the district’s E‑Rate discount cited at about 50%), but typically does not apply to student or staff devices.

Other notable items in the presentation and subsequent board discussion: - Health insurance assumptions: the budget reflects a sizable self‑insurance assumption; staff said the December self‑insurance committee number is a “worst‑case” starting point and that claims reviewed through April can reduce the final budgeted rate. - Summer school: Modancia told the board he removed the proposed funded expansion after weighing last year’s reductions and the district’s in‑district remediation options; summer programs previously relied on a mix of tuition and federal one‑time funds. - Athletics and extracurriculars: a modest request to start a girls’ golf program at the high school was described as a low‑cost proposal that followed student interest surveys of more than 20 female athletes. - Facilities and capital items: the high school’s rekeying project and required PCB monitoring were discussed; staff said some items previously budgeted as “major projects” have been moved into recurring operating lines to reflect ongoing replacement needs. - Fleet replacement: the board queried vehicle condition ratings and safety; staff said vehicles are maintained and that items flagged “poor” are prioritized for future replacement and that unsafe vehicles are not put on the road.

Board members and staff agreed to continue the budget review at a reconvened workshop Thursday evening, and the superintendent said the district will present the proposed budget to the Board of Finance on February 12 at 6:30 p.m. Modancia also reminded the board the group could schedule a special meeting after the governor’s budget is released if members prefer to delay adoption until state actions are clearer.

The presentation and discussion made clear several contingent risks: special‑education reimbursement volatility, self‑insurance claim experience, and transportation contract costs. Modancia said staff will populate the board’s question grid with outstanding data requests (including run‑rate comparisons and detailed counts for out‑of‑district special‑education placements) ahead of Thursday’s workshop.

The board did not take final formal votes during the workshop; the meeting focused on staff presentation, clarifying questions, and directing follow‑up information to be added to the board’s question grid for subsequent meetings.