In a departure from previous practice, which First Selectman Pat Llodra observed was both "different" and "unusual," the Board of Finance turned what has typically been a one-sided presentation into a 3½-hour vetting of the school district's 2016-17 budget proposal Monday, February 8.Down-Trending HistoryReductions And QuestionsBOF Q&A document February 8 2016.docThe Q&A document presented during Monday's meeting can be read here: Board of Finance February 8, 2016 meeting

Chairman James Gaston, Sr, justified the extended Q&A session, which has previously occurred following the finance board's public hearing, saying members had received the district's budget books in advance and arrived at Monday's session with questions and observations in hand.

Following Board of Education discussion and an additional reduction of $146,557 four days earlier, the district brought forward to finance officials an approved $74,215,066 budget request representing a $2,627,120 or 3.67 percent increase over the current year's spending plan.

Superintendent of Schools Joseph V. Erardi, Jr opened his presentation explaining that $415,130 of the proposed new spending is related to new and expanded staffing.

Dr Erardi said in the current budget, $315,340 in costs tied to existing staffing are compensated by grants. Part of that funding, which came to the district for post-12/14 recovery, is expiring at the end of the current academic year.

About $158,000 is from a US Department of Justice SERV grant underwriting a Reed Intermediate School social worker, a high school psychologist, and three security guards. An added $20,000 comes from The Sandy Hook Foundation covering the expense of a middle school Academic Resource Center staffer.

Prior to the school board's approval of the budget plan, that panel added a $36,000 board certified behavior analyst position for the elementary level special education program.

Dr Erardi said the net increase in staffing is offset by the reduction of more than a dozen positions across the district. Those reductions amount to $732,547, bringing a net savings of $317,417. The district is also requesting $848,614 in its "property and equipment" line representing a $62,602 increase.

If eventually approved as proposed, that increase would include $100,856 in technology purchases and $18,850 for a new district maintenance vehicle.

The superintendent continued, turning to key increases of $700,042 that equal nearly one percent of the entire budget request:

*$422,343 in increased out-of-district tuition;

*$252,468 in additional transportation services costs; and

*$25,231 in additional purchased services.

He then launched into a review of key budget drivers totaling just over $2.6 million. Those increases include:

*$643,385 or a 0.9 percent increase in health insurance costs;

*$1.32 million or a 1.84 percent increase in personnel contractual spending;

*$236,663 or a 0.33 percent bump representing an "operational staffing impact" related to SERV grant positions; and

*$424,685 in out-of-district student placement.

Dr Erardi moved on, displaying a graph showing how the district's annual budget requests and approvals have been trending lower since the 2001-02 school year. The graph shows the 2016-17 request as spiking up from zero percent in the 2014 to 1.27 percent in the current year.

If approved, the added 3.67 percent requested for next year would represent the highest increase since 2013, when the district requested a 6.5 percent hike but eventually received a 3.93 percent increase in the approved budget.

At that point, the superintendent moved into an enrollment overview. He projected charts covering each of the four levels in the district led by the projection of a 150 student decline anticipated in the next budget cycle.

The breakdown of projected enrollment declines is as follows:

*Pre-K through fourth grade (-21)

*Reed School (-43)

*Middle School (-62)

*High School (-24)

Dr Erardi concluded his presentation after about 45 minutes, telling finance officials: "Don't give away your support - we're hoping you ask every question…if you have unanswered questions, shame on you."

Dr Erardi then pledged that if the budget moves on to taxpayers in referendum as proposed, "it will have a resounding first referendum pass."

School board Chairman Keith Alexander added that his board worked hard and spent a lot of time reviewing and adjusting the budget requests, adding that in the end, board members want to be comfortable with the request.

"We spent time discussing even some of the minor changes," he said. "We don't want to hand off something that is not an excellent estimate of what we need."

As part of his discussion, Dr Erardi circulated a document showing seven final reductions the school board made before approving the 2016-17 proposal that moved to the finance board. Those reductions included:

*$58,800 for fuel oil;

*$20,000 in snow plowing specifically for Sandy Hook Elementary School;

*$$14,625 for a pool scoreboard;

*$32,892 in "technical adjustments";

*$50,000 for technology equipment;

*$10,540 for diesel fuel savings; and

*$6,000 for Sandy Hook School natural gas.

In addition to the behavioral analyst, the school board also added $10,300 to the "Coaching & Advisors" line.

Ahead of the budget presentation, the finance board also sent several specific questions to district officials, which were answered in writing. Some of those subjects came up and were addressed during the February 8 presentation.

The advance questions were related to the district's proposed expansion of its World Language Program, its Gifted and Talented initiative, class size, added nursing staff at the high school, technology, transportation, and the potential to either create shared services, or bringing back some services from out of district delivery to help save additional tax dollars.

In addressing the roughly 10 percent increase in Special Education costs, the district attributed that increase to:

*Outplacements;

*More students with special education needs. The document noted the district has had about a six percent increase each year on average over the past three years, using October numbers from the past three years, which has resulted in a need for more special education teachers, supervisors of special education, etc;

*Students' needs have changed; even despite the increase of students identified, there have been obvious shifts (changes/increases) in services students are requiring (i.e., 1:1 support, tutoring, direct teaching of reading programs, consultants, outside assessments);

*Families moving into district with significant special education needs; and

*Litigation/Legal fees.

.

.Video of the entire finance board meeting and its initial questions beginning at about the 42 minute mark, can be viewed here: 

Users may be prompted to download a Microsoft software package to permit viewing.