Voters Shoot Down Budget, BOF Cuts BOE Budget
- Theresa Cramer
- Apr 9
- 6 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
Stafford voters turned out in record numbers on Tuesday to vote against the proposed 2025-2026 budget. Just 671 people voted to fund the budget, while 1,664 voted against it. The Board of Finance (BOF) convened immediately after the votes were counted and the adjourned Town Meeting ended. BOF Chair Steve Geryk called the budget defeat “pretty resounding” and pointed out that two years ago, when a similar increase was proposed, it lost by a large margin, and the Board of Selectmen ended up setting the budget because one still had not been approved by tax time.
After saying he knew that the schools needed more money, Geryk suggested taking a “bottom-up” approach, and instead of telling the town and schools how much they needed to cut, the board should decide how much above their current budgets they would have to spend. Pretty early on, it was agreed that the BOF was not ready to cut the town side of the budget, as it had only asked for a .95% increase. (It’s worth noting that some costs previously included in the town side of the budget have been shifted to the BOE budget. The school district will now pay for half of the yearly audit, costs associated with administering a shared retirement plan, and 100% of the School Resource officer’s salary. That shifts about $80,000 of expenses from one side of the budget to the other.) These expenses still appear in the town’s budget but are offset by non-tax revenue from the Board of Education.*
So, the question was how much of an increase the schools would get.
BOF member Dave Walsh, an outspoken advocate for the schools, said he thought the schools’ request was on par with what other schools around the state are asking for. He also said he had lived through many local administrations who believed a 0% increase was the only option. “Ride the roads today and see that legacy,” he added.
Geryk said he believed that not taking action after the public budget hearing was a “failure on our part” and, again, questioned why the school did not spend more than $1 million of its '23 -'24 budget. Dr. Laura Norbut, Interim Superintendent, attempted to explain that the schools could not fill roughly 20 positions that year. However, since the meeting was not a public hearing, she was not allowed to speak at length.
The ‘23-’24 BOE Budget Surplus & the ‘24-’25 Budget Deficit
The budget surplus is a topic that has come up before. Here is the salient point from our past article: “In ‘23-’24, the district had 291.7 FTEs, losing 28.9 FTEs after budget reductions. Additionally, the district could not fill about 20 positions for all or part of the year, resulting in last year’s end-of-year surplus. The district spent $783,803 less for salaries in ‘23-’24 than was budgeted.”
Much of this “surplus” money ($625,000) was used to shore up the floundering self-insurance fund, and some of it ($77,000) went to the non-lapsing fund. That fund serves as a savings account for the schools to use in emergencies, and much of it was used to help decrease the BOE budget increase for ‘24-’25. After the annual town audit, more unspent money was returned to the non-lapsing fund. However, in the ensuing weeks, that money has been used to pay down the school district’s deficit, which is still estimated at more than $240,000 for the year.
The new BOF-approved budget
The referendum results being what they were, the BOF still had to decide what a reasonable increase for the BOE looked like. Tony Pellegrino pointed out that inflation was 2.9%, and Anthony Armelin motioned for a 2.95% increase for the BOE. That was ultimately shot down, as some members felt it was “still too big of a hill to climb,” as Geryk put it. One of the main concerns for the board was putting forth a budget that voters would accept because the longer this goes on and the more votes it goes to, the bigger the hit will be to the schools and, potentially, the town budget.
Eventually, the board considered a $718,083 (2.31%) increase to the BOE budget. Combined with the town’s increase of .95%, that would bring the total mill rate increase to 1.12 mills. This was approved 3-2, with Geryk abstaining. He said he believes this is, historically speaking, close to what the town will accept. However, he didn’t think it was likely after a failed referendum. Whether or not he’s right, we’ll see when the new budget comes back up for a vote in a few weeks.
What’s at stake for Stafford schools
While it’s too early to say precisely what the impact on the schools will be, all we need to do is go back to the original budget proposed at the BOE’s budget workshop in January. At that point, Dr. Norbut proposed a 4.53% increase. At the time, she said 4.51% of the increase was due to contractually mandated increases. That budget version eliminated 11 full-time employees, including English teachers and interventionists. The BOF-approved 2.31% increase is, obviously, significantly less than was initially proposed, and Dr. Norbut has repeatedly said that staff is all that’s left to cut. So, it's not hard to imagine what's coming down the pipeline.
I reached out to Dr. Norbut and BOE Chair Sara Kelley to get their reactions to the cuts. While they were unable to respond before this article was originally published, I did, in time, receive responses.
Dr. Norbut says,
"A school district is the heart of a community. The students of Stafford Public Schools will become future business owners, town leaders, and educators in our district. While the decision of the voters at the referendum is to be respected, the budget reduction by the Board of Finance of $984,803.33 will have significant implications for our district.
What does a reduction of $984,803.33 mean to Stafford Public Schools and the students in our care? The Board of Education budget consists largely of fixed costs, including unfunded mandates and essential student services. We are committed to re-examining the budget and working with the Board of Education to carefully consider each reduction and its impact on student learning. Currently, over 70% of the Board of Education budget includes salaries and benefits. The budget voted on at the referendum included the elimination of seven positions. Our staff is the most valuable resource we have to educate our students, and our children are losing educators who make a positive impact on their lives.
We encourage you to stay informed as budget adjustments are made. These reductions, as stated in previous Board of Education meetings, will have to come from staffing and programs. We must all work together to move Stafford Public Schools forward. Our students depend on us, and they are the future of Stafford."
Kelley, who made clear she was not speaking for the board as a whole, wrote:
While it is encouraging that Stafford saw a higher-than-usual voter turnout, the outcome remains disappointing. The cuts made by the Board of Finance will have a long-lasting negative impact on Stafford Public Schools. These additional reductions will lead to the loss of vital programs and staff, ultimately affecting our students who, unfortunately, have no voice in this matter. The Board is dedicated to collaborating with Dr. Norbut and the entire Stafford Public Schools community to maintain as many programs and staff members as possible.
Actions speak louder than words, and the targeted reduction to the Board of Education's budget contradicts the statements of Board of Finance members who claim to be advocates for education. The decision to prevent public commentary signals that community feedback is not valued. It is clear that the community was dissatisfied with both the BOE and BOS proposed budgets.
The interpretation of the BOE numbers from previous years is a misleading representation that has been addressed throughout the budget process. Anyone familiar with data knows that numbers alone don’t tell the full story. Just as a test score doesn't define a student, these figures don't present the complete picture of our school district.
We all have the opportunity to improve and should make a concerted effort to collaborate more effectively, moving Stafford forward instead of backward. The Board of Education will stay committed to prioritizing the best interests of all students and staff at Stafford Public Schools.
*At the request of Stafford's Finance Director, Yana Abramovich, this sentence was added for clarification after the article was initially published.