Burlington school board approves $134.8 million FY26 budget, cites estimated 4% tax-rate drop

The Burlington School Board voted to approve a $134,779,831 annual budget for fiscal year 2026 and the district's recommended ballot language during its Jan. 21 meeting, adopting a proposal district leaders said could result in an estimated 4% decrease in local property taxes.

Superintendent Flanagan presented the final budget recommendation, saying the proposal "maintains current levels of service and aligns staffing to enrollment, drives funds towards students who need it most with the updated RISE allocations, and reduces central office budgets for a second year." Flanagan added, "This proposal will result now in an estimated 4% tax decrease." The board then moved to a vote; the motion carried with board members verbally indicating assent and no recorded opposition or abstentions.

Why it matters: The vote settles the district's FY26 spending plan and the ballot language voters will see, while spotlighting two larger forces shaping the budget: (1) changes to Vermont's education funding formula that increased Burlington's long-term weighted average daily membership (LTWADM), and (2) the winding down of one-time federal ESSER funds that have supported prior budgets.

Board members and staff sought to show how the FY26 figures were constructed and to reduce confusion about year-to-year totals. Flanagan said the presentation highlighted the education fund spending "— those are the dollars that are taxed." Finance-related slides and discussion aimed to explain why the district's overall reported budget number differs from the education fund amount that drives tax impacts.

Board members pressed staff on debt service tied to recent capital borrowing for the new high school. Executive director Labrad said the district has used most of the borrowing capacity for the campus project and estimated the outstanding program borrowing at roughly the "low hundreds of millions" (staff noted there are still millions remaining against voter authorization). Labrad said that while debt service will continue to rise in the short term, "it's not going to keep growing significantly in the next few years" because capacity to borrow further is limited.

Board members also discussed one-time and grant funds included in the FY26 presentation. Flanagan and staff explained the district is aligning its published budget numbers with how the Vermont Agency of Education and other districts report totals, which brought federal grants and certain enterprise funds (for example, food services) into the larger overall budget figure even though those lines do not directly affect local tax calculations. Flanagan said the shift in accounting presentation was intended to avoid confusion when the state's published numbers differ from the district's historical presentation.

RISE allocations and student weighting: The presentation included updated RISE allocations by school. Flanagan said Burlington's long-term weighted ADM rose because individual students with higher educational needs were weighted more heavily in the state formula study conducted by University of Vermont, American Institutes for Research and Rutgers University; she described that change as the reason the district now receives higher state-directed allocations. Commissioners noted that while the new weighting benefits Burlington this year, the state funding formula and weights remain subject to legislative review and could change.

Federal ESSER funds: Board members and staff confirmed that ESSER (federal pandemic relief) funding is ending. Labrad and Flanagan said ESSER accounted for a meaningful portion of "other funds" in recent budgets and its expiration reduced those totals; Flanagan noted the district is at the "tail end" of ESSER funding and that the FY27 column for those federal funds will be substantially lower.

Ballot language: District staff said state law prescribes much of the required ballot language; Burlington's proposed ballot statement adds a clarifying sentence in bold noting the current estimate that spending at the recommended level "could produce a property tax rate decrease of 4%." Board members supported including the additional sentence to help voters interpret the state's required disclosures.

Vote at a glance: The board approved the FY26 annual school budget and recommended ballot language by voice vote. The motion, moved by Commissioner Sowers and seconded by Commissioner Campriello, carried after board members voted "aye" with no recorded opposition or abstentions.

What the district plans next: Staff said they will finalize and post a one-page summary and supporting charts (including a debt-service projection) linked to ballot materials. Board members urged ongoing advocacy at the state level to monitor any legislative changes to the funding formula.

The meeting closed after the budget vote and the board adjourned.