East Haddam subcommittee reviews proposed 2026–27 school operating budgets

The East Haddam Board of Education Business & Planning Subcommittee on Jan. 7 reviewed proposed 2026–27 operating budgets for the district’s three schools, with presenters walking the committee through line‑item requests for instructional supplies, field trips, athletics and student supports.

The presentations covered building-level operating lines (which the presenters said exclude salaries and benefits), department needs and anticipated cost pressures. The presenter for the high school said the school’s non-salary operating budget is lower overall than last year after reductions in some areas, while the elementary budget showed a larger operating reduction and district screeners and subscriptions account for several of the proposed increases.

The meeting matters because the subcommittee’s review helps shape the superintendent’s recommended budget that the board will consider ahead of the town budget process. Committee members pressed for clarity on recurring costs — especially transportation for athletics and large field trips — and on how district and external funds offset school requests.

Presenters described the highest operating-cost categories as athletics (officials, transportation and event supervision), field trips, technology maintenance and student assessments. At the high school, presenters said last year’s operating budget (excluding salaries) was cited at about $486,000; the 2026–27 operating request shown in the slides was presented as a net reduction in operating object lines (the presenter summarized a roughly $172,675 decrease in the non‑salary operating total), while noting some individual tabs show increases where specific supplies, travel or software are needed. The high school presenter also said the counseling area continues to absorb AP exam fees: the district has typically covered AP exam costs (presenter cited $95–$150 per exam) and budgeted this year for roughly 140 assessments while anticipating up to about 170, pending student registrations.

Athletics drew sustained questioning. The presenter said the athletic budget shows a modest operating decrease overall but flagged higher anticipated costs for referees/officials, bus travel and added adult supervision at events. On the question of a full‑time athletic trainer, presenters said the district had budgeted roughly $48,000–$50,000: that figure would either pay a consistent contracted trainer or be used to buy per‑event trainer coverage when a dedicated trainer cannot be secured.

Committee members also pressed department leads about technology and license requests. The middle school and elementary presentations noted multiple subscription and benchmark tools: examples discussed were Amplify and DIBELS/MClass for screening and progress monitoring, Bridges math (the district proposed extending Bridges resources to pre‑K), and Mystery Science for elementary investigations. Presenters said some increases reflect one‑time timing differences and reallocation of items (for example, putting illustrative‑math workbooks into grade‑level budgets where staff actually use them).

Several outside or offset funding items were clarified. A presenter said the separate rateboard (Rayboard) provides an annual allocation (presenter cited $365,000) that is used to support a set of teacher-driven purchases; after removing recurring offsets the presenter said roughly $80,000 is treated as a discretionary ‘wish‑list’ teachers propose to the Rayboard. On a recurring notation in some spreadsheets that read like a “freeze,” Superintendent Dr. Drito told the committee: “There was no district freeze on spending.” Dr. Drito explained that some line‑item notes reflected local wording or prior guidance on requests, not a district‑wide prohibition on purchases.

The presentations raised a few items that committee members said they would follow up on: ensuring admissions costs were included where travel lines listed only bus expenses, getting clearer totals for items that teachers had flagged as previously delayed, and reconciling a small number of formula errors called out during the walkthrough. Presenters committed to bringing clarifying detail to the board as the superintendent prepares the formal recommendation.

Next steps: the superintendent’s recommended budget will be prepared for the full board’s review in February; the subcommittee asked members to forward specific follow‑up questions before the end of the month. The subcommittee adjourned without taking a formal vote on any line items.