Farmington board hears 2026–27 budget, public criticism; consultants outline $171M zero‑mill bond plan

Farmington Board of Education members on June 2 heard the assistant superintendent for business present the proposed 2026–27 general fund budget and received a separate facilities presentation describing a proposed $171 million bond package to appear on the November ballot.

Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Jennifer Kaminsky told the board the general fund budget projects $178,863,000 in revenue against $186,973,000 in expenditures, producing an expected use of fund balance of roughly $8.1 million and a projected ending fund balance of about 15.7%, which she said remains above the board’s 10–15% target. Kaminsky described the district’s fund structure, instructional investments (K–2 foundational skills, Illustrative Math, technology tools such as DreamBox and Lexia) and a projected $250 per‑pupil increase in the state foundation allowance alongside a longer‑term gap the district estimates at about $40 million due to inflation outpacing per‑pupil increases.

Why it matters: The board discussed drawing on reserves intentionally to preserve services while facing uncertainty in state and federal funding and unsettled student enrollment until fall count day. Public scrutiny of the budget and of student achievement—especially literacy—was immediate: a member of the public identified in the record as Mr. Loveway said the document shows an $8 million loss, called the district’s per‑pupil spending excessive and asserted that ‘‘44% of our students can’t read at grade level,’’ prompting trustees and staff to point listeners to the detailed budget in the board packet and on the district website.

The board also heard a capital‑planning presentation from Plant Moran and TMP Architecture summarizing community survey results and a recommended phase‑one bond. Consultants described a $171 million, zero‑mill‑increase plan primarily targeted to academic and instructional improvements (roughly 85% of the package), including transforming media centers into reimagined "eye centers" with STEAM/maker spaces, updating classroom furnishings, upgrading instructional technology, and selective critical infrastructure work. The consultants said survey testing showed roughly three‑quarters of respondents supported the package overall and that the district would sell the bond in several series, with a first issuance likely in spring 2027 if voters approve the measure in November 2026.

On process: Miller Canfield counsel reviewed draft ballot language presented to the board and noted the statutory filing deadline with the county clerk (August 11) for a November placement. The proposed ballot summary lists the $171 million amount, general categories of work (modern learning environments, STEAM/maker spaces, instructional technology, site improvements), an estimated average retirement levy and clarifies that bond proceeds may not be used for routine operations or salaries.

Board and public reaction: Trustees thanked presenters and asked detailed questions about bookkeeping, whether books would remain in renovated media centers (staff confirmed books will remain in eye centers alongside technology), parking and site work, and equity between high schools. Members of the public voiced fiscal concerns during the budget public comment period—one commenter called the budget “not responsible budgeting” and pressed for a clear plan to raise reading outcomes. Trustees and staff responded by describing budget‑to‑actual monitoring, the use of fund balance as a deliberate step requested by community members in prior years, and ongoing investments in tutoring and elementary literacy programs.

Next steps: The board will consider the ballot resolution language at a subsequent meeting (a draft resolution was scheduled for review June 16) and continue budget amendments as state funding and enrollment counts are finalized. The consent agenda, which included minutes and routine items, passed by motion during the meeting.