The East Haven Board of Education heard a budget presentation Tuesday that proposes a $54.5 million operating request for 2025–26, an increase of about $2.25 million (roughly 4.3%). Presenters framed the request around student supports and long-term sustainability and said three conservative savings drivers — fewer out-of-district special-education placements, a grant-funded transition for Overbrook Early Learning Center, and expected utility savings from new solar arrays — together account for about $1.4 million of identified savings.

Superintendent (speaker 3) opened the workshop by asking the board to evaluate the budget through the district’s mission and said the proposal foregrounds investments in college-and-career readiness, special-education programming and a mandated elementary literacy program required by state law. “We bring forward this evening thinking about our mission and how it underpins the vision,” she said, explaining the plan seeks to be “fiscally responsible, but educationally sound.”

On special education, the superintendent said the district’s average per-pupil out-of-district placement cost rose last year and that pupil-services work with families and placement providers has already reduced the number of students in outplacement by 11 compared with the prior budget baseline. She characterized that change as equating to “around $1,000,000 dollars of savings to the operational budget” as some students were brought back in-district or aged out of district fiscal responsibility.

Leaders also described a year-over-year realignment that would remove roughly $200,000 of Overbrook Early Learning expenses from the operating budget by shifting costs to grant lines, enabled in part by recent state grant expansions for early learning. RJ, the district’s finance presenter, outlined a solar project across six buildings and said four buildings have received permission to operate; the district conservatively trimmed the electricity budget by “a little over $200,000” pending final utility inspections.

Taken together, the presenters said those top three drivers generate about $1.4 million in conservative savings from the current operating baseline. The budget packet also centralizes textbook and instructional-supply oversight to promote equity of access and accountability, and it anticipates a modest decline — roughly $150,000 — in one-time grant funding while preserving recurring federal grant lines that support several salary costs.

The proposed budget restores some FTE at East Haven High School after reductions over two cycles that district staff said have left many students in study-hall time rather than credit-bearing courses. The superintendent said the district found numerous study halls in its master schedule and that adding staff would allow the district to reopen course sections and expand opportunities such as industry-recognized credentials through CTE partnerships.

On special-education staffing, the district proposed new FTE for JMMS and East Haven Academy (including special-education teachers and a behavioral specialist), a K–2 specialized program sited at Momoguen that could serve students districtwide, and the reclassification of a pupil-services coordinator from a teacher-on-assignment to an administrative posting to centralize IEP oversight and fiscal monitoring. The superintendent said these steps respond to rising IEP counts — she reported the district’s share of students with IEPs at 21% overall and said about 23% of the current kindergarten class have IEPs — and aim to reduce costly outplacements by building capacity in-district.

The board packet also addressed a state-mandated elementary literacy program under the Right to Read legislation. Staff said East Haven previously qualified for a waiver based on the district’s prior materials, but the waiver lapsed because the cited program (ReadyGen) is no longer supported. The district’s review team has evaluated multiple options and will reconvene to score the programs and shape a multiyear implementation plan; presenters emphasized the purchase is multi-year and that a five-year horizon is more fiscally prudent than repeated short-term buys.

Technology and facilities needs were included: administrators proposed a five-year device-leasing cycle to replace ARPA-funded Chromebooks that have reached end of life and to sustain digital labs for CTE pathways, and they called for deferred maintenance investments (gym floors and other routine work) to avoid larger capital costs later.

RJ reviewed the district’s medical-claims experience and the town’s guarantee model. He said FY25 actual claims were about $9.6 million with a $2.0 million shortfall; current-year payments through December totaled $4.5 million, annualizing near $9.1 million, and a third-party estimate had been $10.7 million. Under the town’s flat-premium with guarantee arrangement, district exposure under current projections is estimated at roughly $1.8 million; RJ recommended continuing the same model with a town guarantee to limit employer-premium increases and municipal exposure.

Board members pressed a few clarifying questions, including whether added special-education programming includes a buffer if enrollments spike; staff responded that placement and return-from-outplacement decisions are handled case-by-case by pupil services and that the proposed staffing aims to move the district from reactive to proactive supports.

The presenters asked board members to submit any follow-up budget questions by the end of the week; the board discussed scheduling a budget workshop on Jan. 20 and confirmed the formal vote and town submission timeline (board vote expected Jan. 27; packet to town hall by Feb. 2). There were no formal votes taken during the workshop portion of the meeting.

The workshop packet and presentation materials provide line-by-line object-code detail and the district recommended board members review those breakdowns before the January 27 vote. The district characterized the budget as conservative in its savings assumptions and said it would continue to monitor medical-claims projections and other drivers as final numbers develop.

Next steps: board members will submit questions in writing for staff to address, the district will reconvene the review team on literacy procurement scores, and the board is scheduled to consider the operating request at its Jan. 27 regular meeting.