Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Old Saybrook board approves 4.24% appropriation, sets 2% non‑lapsing reserve after budget debate
Summary
The Old Saybrook Board of Education approved a spending plan that reduces the superintendent’s original request and finances a 6.24% spending plan through a 4.24% appropriation plus a 2% non‑lapsing reserve; the vote passed 6–1 after debate about FTE reductions and summer enrichment cuts.
The Old Saybrook School District Board of Education voted to approve a revised spending plan that will ask the town for a 4.24% operating appropriation while placing 2% of this year’s surplus in a non‑lapsing educational reserve, the board decided after a lengthy discussion. The motion passed by voice vote with six members in favor and one opposed.
Superintendent Chris told the board the measures are designed to reduce the originally proposed increase (about 7.99% before better health‑insurance estimates) while preserving money for one‑time strategic priorities. "We would not be eliminating anybody from their job," Chris said when describing staffing changes; administrators clarified that the plan relies on not refilling three vacant positions and using attrition and internal consolidation to lower certified FTE from 141.55 to 138.55 rather than laying off current employees.
The administration described the 2% non‑lapsing reserve as a way to preserve funds for one‑time educational uses tied to the district’s strategic plan. Officials identified about $300,000 in programmatic enhancements at the high school that could be treated as one‑time spending under that reserve. That split—the administration said—was intended to reassure the town’s Board of Finance that the carryover would not create recurring obligations.
Board members pressed on instructional impact and tradeoffs. Jack said he could not "in good conscience approve a budget that cuts teaching positions" and argued the public should decide a larger request; the superintendent and others responded that the reductions are vacancies or attrition, not involuntary layoffs, and that some class consolidations (an example cited was a change from about 13 students to about 17 in affected sections) were planned to maintain overall equity across grades.
Administrators also explained cuts to summer programming: a summer enrichment program originally funded with COVID relief dollars had been reduced as that one‑time funding expired; roughly $150,000 had already been trimmed and an additional $50,000 reduction was proposed after the district learned abatement work would prevent typical in‑building summer activities. Officials said statutorily required special‑education extended‑year services and targeted remediation for reading and math would continue.
Other budget details cited by administrators included reserving money for K–12 English/language‑arts curriculum revision (to be done with a mix of in‑house staff time and, where needed, external consultants), an uncertain food‑service supplemental line tied to state decisions about meal funding, and a $10,000 line for an outside provider used for professional learning (listed as "CPRL" in the materials).
The board’s motion, introduced by Karen and seconded by Eileen, approved a 6.24% spending plan to be financed by a 4.24% appropriation and a 2% one‑time reserve. The transcript records the vote as six members saying yes and one saying no; a roll‑call roster for the full vote beyond the named No vote was not provided in the meeting transcript.
The board directed administrators to continue implementing phase one of the strategic plan within the revised funding constraints and to work with the Board of Finance and town leadership on capital priorities outside the non‑lapsing educational reserve. The transcript does not specify the meeting date.
