Superintendent warns cuts would 'decimate' programs as councilors spar over fund balance

WESLEY — Facing repeated questions about the school budget, Superintendent Mark Gassow told the Wesley Town Council on April 16 that the district had already made "significant reductions" before the budget reached the manager's office and had transferred $400,000 from fund balance to reduce its FY2027 operating request.

Gassow said those prework cuts included eliminating some building aides, bus monitors and several positions and that the district had reduced full-time equivalent staff by 12.29 positions in the latest proposal. "We did this work, and we also transferred monies from fund balance, $400,000, because we were trying very hard to bring you a budget request that represented an increase of less than 2% and less than $1,000,000," he said.

Why it matters: The exchange highlighted a recurring tension in local budgeting: whether one-time fund balance should be tapped for capital to avoid future borrowing and interest expense or preserved to buffer unexpected special-education and tuition costs.

At the meeting some councilors accused Gassow and school supporters of implying councilors had advocated using surplus to cover operating costs. One councilor said the superintendent was "perpetuating this lie"; Gassow and school supporters disputed that characterization, saying the district had used fund balance in the past primarily for capital or one-time needs and that long-term reliance on fund balance for operations would create structural deficits.

A town/school finance official explained the fund-balance picture: the June 30, 2025 total was $7,478,239 in audited figures that include assigned and committed funds; as of April 16 the available total was about $5,795,691 after commitments such as roughly $1.87 million set aside for the building project. The official emphasized that some portions of the balance are not expendable for operations.

Public reaction: Members of the public and school committee representatives urged the council not to reduce the school appropriation to the formula-determined level. Michael Ober, a longtime school committee member, argued that using bond financing preserves state reimbursement and avoids paying more because of inflation. "We lose in the long term," he said, citing prior failed bond votes that, he said, cost the district state reimbursement and compounded inflationary expense.

The council ultimately split on how to balance operations and capital: some argued for level-funding the operating budget while increasing capital allocations now; others backed the finance-board recommendation to fund operations modestly above level in recognition of rising costs. The council later approved a set of school capital items left by the finance board and adopted the finance-board operating recommendation after amendment votes.

What to watch next: The superintendent and school committee will now balance implementing the approved operating allocation while scheduling capital work and pursuing the state reimbursement process for eligible building expenditures. Council follow-up actions include a manager-produced change log summarizing tonight's edits and further budget workshops before final adoption.

Quotes from the hearing: "When we lose students, it only results in the reduction of a teacher if those students come from the same grade level, the same building," Gassow said, explaining why enrollment declines do not produce one-to-one reductions in staffing. "If we were to reduce the local appropriation to little over $48,000,000, I think it would decimate your programs," he said, pleading for the council to follow the finance board's recommendation to fund the district's request.

Speakers cited: Mark Gassow; Michael Ober (School Committee); finance/staff speakers who provided fund-balance figures and explanations.