Farmington budget committee presses school leaders on sharp proposed budget increase, citing insurance and special-education costs

Farmington — School and SAU leaders told the Town of Farmington Budget Committee on Jan. 14 that a sharp jump in the proposed 2026–27 School District budget is driven largely by insurance and special‑education costs, audit-timing issues and a handful of line‑item corrections that finance staff said they will fix before the public hearing.

At the meeting, Chairman Manny Krasner highlighted the district’s current-year shortfall, telling SAU officials: “the bottom line deficit on Fund 10 for this month was 2.21%.” SAU Finance Coordinator Stephanie Ham attributed much of the reporting confusion to legacy data entry: “the old Business Admin did budget for revenue but for whatever reason he never put the revenue into the system,” she said, meaning some revenue columns currently show zeros and will be corrected with auditor guidance.

Why it matters: Committee members said the size of the proposed increase — members cited a draft figure near $19.6 million — risks voter “sticker shock” and a reversion to a default operating budget that would constrain district choices. Member Fred Pitman pressed the SAU to explain inflationary versus discretionary drivers, saying the proposed number “would be closer to $17,700,000 not $19 million” after a simple inflation adjustment; district staff pointed instead to specific cost drivers.

What officials gave as explanations: SAU and school leaders told the committee that: a) employer health‑insurance rates have spiked (Ham described unusually large rate changes on some plans), b) negotiated salary steps and staffing adjustments rolled into the budget raise base personnel costs, and c) special‑education tuition and out‑of‑district placements produce large, year‑to‑year swings because many placements are private and costs are placement‑specific and reimbursed after the fact. Principal Mark Dangora and Principal Jason Corrow also said some program increases were deliberate investments in experiential learning, dual‑enrollment and new equipment.

Special education and grants: Members pressed for clarity on Special Education lines that varied by hundreds of thousands of dollars year to year. Pomeroy and Ham said variability is explained by: individualized education program (IEP) requirements that can mandate one‑on‑one paraprofessionals, the district’s responsibility for most out‑of‑district tuition (with partial state reimbursement timing), and grant accounting that previously only budgeted a portion of multi‑year awards. Ham said she is reconciling Fund 22 grant balances after auditors and state releases updated prior assumptions.

Process and next steps: The committee was reminded that statute requires a public hearing before the committee or voters can accept a final budget; a motion to accept the budget was withdrawn after members were told the public hearing must occur first. Officials said they will supply corrected revenue tables, revised line items (several suspected transcription errors were identified in substitute and supply lines), and clearer breakouts of insurance and special‑education drivers at the Jan. 16 public hearing, which the committee scheduled for 6 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Chambers.

Quotes and tensions: Superintendent Giselle Pomeroy asked for patience while finance staff complete reconciliation and told the committee the SAU appreciates citizen scrutiny and attention to details. “We’re doing our best; we’re hoping that that covers it all,” Pomeroy said of planned RIFs intended to close the current deficit. Several members recommended the district prepare a short public handout that explains which cost increases the district cannot control (insurance, contracted tuition, negotiated raises) and which are discretionary.

What was not decided: No budget votes were taken; motions recorded in the meeting included routine procedural items (minutes deferred to the next meeting and the meeting adjourned 10–0). The committee emphasized it wants complete, corrected budget and revenue tables at the Jan. 16 public hearing so voters can see a clear itemization before deliberation at the Deliberative Session.

What’s next: The district will (1) reconcile DRA entries and grant balances with auditors, (2) correct suspected transcription errors in supply and substitute lines, and (3) prepare a one‑page public handout and charts distinguishing uncontrollable cost drivers from discretionary choices for the Jan. 16 public hearing.