Seymour superintendent recommends $43.0 million budget; board backs 4.7% roll‑forward plan

Superintendent Dr. Compton on Thursday presented a $43,002,028 proposed budget for the Seymour School District, asking the board to support a 4.7% increase that she said is necessary to maintain current staffing and essential services.

The proposal, described as the superintendent’s draft to take to the Board of Finance, retains the district’s existing personnel levels while targeting limited cuts in non‑instructional lines. "This is what our kids need," Dr. Compton said, asking the board for support of the 4.7% figure and urging the town to prioritize funding for public schools.

Why it matters: Dr. Compton told the board that personnel and benefits make up about 78% of the budget and that special education is a major cost driver — she said the district’s special‑education budget is about $11 million. With state and federal special‑ed funding uncertain, the superintendent said Seymour must plan conservatively while continuing to seek additional aid.

Key elements and proposed adjustments: The superintendent and budget staff outlined several targeted reductions and offsets intended to bring the required increase down from an earlier rollover figure: a $20,000 reduction in legal fees; a $30,000 cut in instructional materials and supplies; reductions in the property/liability insurance provision; and anticipated energy savings from a renegotiated electricity contract. Salvatore, a district budget staffer, said the new energy contract should save roughly $50,000–$60,000 annually.

On staffing, the plan would add three paraeducators to staff new CARE rooms at Sheffield and Preston and create a full‑time library/media specialist at the high school by repurposing a retiring science teacher’s position. The superintendent also highlighted speech‑language caseloads that she said have risen into the 60s and said an additional speech pathologist remains a priority if funding permits.

Board discussion and next steps: Board members pressed for line‑item detail and clarity about timing and sources. One member cited state data showing Seymour ranks near the bottom of districts in per‑pupil spending and urged outreach to legislators for more stable funding; another asked that the facilities needs list be coordinated with the town’s capital plan.

After deliberation the board signaled support for advancing the superintendent’s 4.7% bottom‑line recommendation and scheduled an additional workshop next week for more detailed review. "I think we should just go with this," one member said in closing. No formal adoption vote was recorded at the workshop; the budget recommendation will be presented to the Board of Finance for consideration.

What remains unresolved: The final budget will depend on forthcoming state health‑plan rate confirmations (the district is budgeting a 13.5% rate in county projections) and any state or federal supplemental grants. The board directed staff to produce updated line‑item numbers for the next workshop and agreed to prioritize facilities planning with town officials.

The Board of Education adjourned after scheduling the follow‑up session.