Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cromwell board narrows budget tradeoffs, prioritizes two RBT hires
Summary
Board members reviewed insurance-driven budget scenarios and directed administration to prepare four budget permutations; several trustees said two registered behavior technician positions should be kept while some nonessential items could be cut or covered from surplus.
The Cromwell Board of Education spent a large portion of its March 10 meeting weighing budget options driven by rising health‑insurance costs, and it directed administration to prepare four alternate budget scenarios for the next meeting.
Business official Mr. Boatwell presented scenarios modeling 28%, 30% and 32% insurance increases and a separate calculation for the Connecticut Partnership option (which he said would reduce the projected percentage increase to roughly 6.5% before certain required restorations). Boatwell explained the packet includes a “menu” of line items that could be removed, deferred, or restored and noted the district’s auditors recently adjusted a prior-year surplus upward; he estimated the currently visible surplus in the high hundreds of thousands but cautioned that special-education reimbursements and other variables make the final figure uncertain.
Superintendent Dr. Macri urged the board not to cut the two proposed RBT positions — citing student safety, behavior support and staff burnout — and asked trustees to identify “absolutes” so administration can produce realistic permutations. Several trustees echoed the priority for the two RBTs. Board discussion produced a working set of options: (1) a scenario keeping both RBTs and both proposed math-coach positions and returning the full surplus to the budget, (2) the same but without the math positions, (3) variants that preserve $150,000 of surplus as a rainy-day fund, and (4) variants preserving $50,000. Mr. Boatwell computed a sample outcome that would place the proposed increase in the mid‑5% range under several combinations.
No formal budget vote was taken. The board asked administration to return with the four permutations and supporting spreadsheets at a follow-up meeting, and several members recommended prioritizing attrition rather than involuntary layoffs if deeper reductions are required.
