CVSD presents first‑pass FY26 budget with $103M target; administration outlines reductions and special‑education changes
Summary
District administration presented a first-pass FY26 expense plan targeting $103,000,000, describing about $2.5 million in staff reductions (roughly 38 FTE), $1.4 million in non-personnel cuts, program reductions across arts and electives, and a $300,000 special-education non‑personnel savings plus 3 FTE special-education professional position reductions; risks include negotiations, student-weight changes, and tax-rate factors.
District administration presented the board with a first‑pass FY26 spending plan tied to a $103,000,000 board target and explained the impact of state pupil-weight changes and transition incentives on local tax capacity.
Administration said FY25 spending was $101,801,185 and the FY26 draft budget stands at $103,020,001.40, a roughly 1.2 percent expense increase over FY25. The presentation said the district developed the $103 million target to balance student needs and community affordability.
On the expense side, presenters described planned reductions across categories: approximately $2,500,000 in staff savings (about 38 full‑time equivalent positions), non‑personnel cuts of roughly $1,400,000, modest increases in class sizes while remaining within Vermont Education Quality Standards, and reduced offerings in essential arts, wellness, PE, and world languages. Administration said they are not jeopardizing the district’s 1:1 device program but are trimming building‑level hardware replacements and discretionary spending by $100,000.
The presentation included a $187,000 proposed lease expense (subject to board approval) to support the strategic plan (six electric buses) and noted partial offset from an EPA grant. Special education was highlighted separately: administration reported a 1.5 percent increase overall in special‑education expense but said they identified about $300,000 in non‑personnel savings and proposed a 3.0 FTE reduction in professional‑level special‑education positions; officials cautioned personnel specifics were not disclosed because affected employees had not yet been notified.
Presenters stressed many services are legally required under IEPs and that special‑education costs remain difficult to reduce. The district reported its proportion of students on IEPs at approximately 13.1 percent compared with a 15 percent national average and noted slight increases in evaluations for anxiety, depression, and emotional‑disturbance categories since the pandemic.
Board members and members of the public raised questions about the process for notifying affected staff and families, the timing of student‑weight estimates (expected later in the week), potential teacher‑contract negotiation outcomes, and the district’s December timeline for refining revenue estimates and tax‑rate modeling. Administration said teacher negotiations are just opening and student weights are pending; these items, along with the tax commissioner’s December 1 letter and subsequent yield calculations, create budget uncertainty.
Administration outlined next steps and a calendar: itemized presentations on general education, operations and capital, and revenue/tax‑rate modeling are scheduled in December and January, with articles and final budget approval planned in January.
