Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional School District 13 board weighs cuts and a new referendum after May 5 vote failure
Summary
At a special meeting, the Regional School District 13 Board of Education reviewed why the May 5 budget referendum failed, debated trimming a library media specialist and $100,000 in capital to lower the proposed increase, and directed staff to produce a revised proposal and referendum schedule.
Regional School District 13’s Board of Education met in a special session to review the May 5 referendum defeat and to prepare a revised budget that the board plans to put before voters again.
Public commenter Elizabeth Shoudy of Durham told the board she did not hear a single overriding objection to the budget aside from earlier debate over a school-naming issue and urged better outreach to get parents to the polls. "We just need to figure out how to reach our parents better and get them to vote," Shoudy said.
Board members and staff focused on several likely contributors to the loss in Middlefield, where "no" votes were stronger than in other towns, and on late community concerns about changes to ABA staff arrangements. A staff member told the board the ABA change reduces paid vacation by converting some ABAs from 12-month to 10-month positions (similar to teacher assistants) and does not cut student services: "There are absolutely no services being cut to students whatsoever," the staff member said.
Faced with the referendum result, board members discussed a set of possible reductions to lower the gross budget increase. Leadership proposed postponing the library media specialist hire for one year and trimming $100,000 from capital projects (a move staff warned could delay repairs at Brewster and Lyman). Staff said those two changes together would reduce the gross increase to about 3.93% and the net increase to about 3.75%; an alternate scenario discussed by the board would put gross at about 3.74% and net at 3.56%.
Staff also reported an unanticipated one-time state grant of about $215,000 split between Middlefield and Durham. Legal counsel had advised presenting that money as a grant rather than labeling it "ECS" (Education Cost Sharing) to avoid creating a new maintenance-of-base-year (MBR) obligation in future budgets.
Members emphasized the role of instructional coaches in raising student outcomes and cautioned against cutting coaching positions now, while others said trimming leadership lines may be a tolerable compromise. Board members asked staff to identify specific line items where smaller reductions (for example, $70,000–$75,000) could be taken if the board wants to avoid tapping capital reserves.
Staff provided two timing options for the resubmission: a district meeting May 27 with voting May 28, or a district meeting June 1 with voting June 2; both towns preferred the June dates. The board directed staff to circulate a written revised proposal before the board’s Wednesday vote and to notify the towns and the public when the details are finalized.
The meeting ended after the board moved to adjourn; no formal vote on the revised budget occurred at the session.
