Municipal, School Officials Grapple with 2013-14 Education Budget

In a year marked with the loss of state funding, a restrictive state educational grant and in which many people are receiving less pay, despite wage increases, the Board of Directors must find a way to maintain essential programs at a reasonable cost.

That was the message conveyed during a meeting last week between the directors and school officials when the groups met at the Lincoln Center to review the proposed 2013-14 educational budget.

For nearly three hours, they discussed the details of the school budget, from the costs associated with out-of-district tuition and transportation and substitute teacher fees to teacher evaluations, salaries and benefits. They reviewed capital improvement plans, state grants, including the “restrictive” Alliance District funding, and school security measures, though not in detail.

No decisions were made about how much funding the schools would ultimately receive for the 2013-14 fiscal year, but directors said that they'd consider all the information provided during their final budget deliberations in early April.

Earlier this month General Manager Scott Shanley presented a $169,388,904 municipal budget proposal for the 2013-14 fiscal, representing a 2.4 percent increase when compared with the current budget. The budget, if approved as proposed, will require a 3.6 increase in taxes (the mill rate would increase to 32.72, which would result in a tax increase of $135 on the value of the median home in town valued at $118,300).

However, Shanley's budget suggests a 3.1 percent increase for school funding, which falls almost $2.5 million short of the funds the Board of Education requested for the coming fiscal year, meaning the potential loss of nine full-time teaching positions, special programs, reducing the coaching staff and possibly closing the high school pool. In response, Interim Superintendent of Schools Richard Kisiel unveiled a long list of cuts last week to the school board in an attempt to highlight what would be lost, saying that the reductions would have a "dire impact" on Manchester's education system (Kisiel's entire proposal is attached to this article as a PDF). 

The potential loss of progams has angered some residents and funding must be restored to the proposal in order to maintain athletics, the arts, music and gifted and talented programs.

At the school board meeting Monday night, several people continued to argue on behalf of a specific position that could be eliminated if the funding is not restored: the athletic trainer. They said that cutting the position, worth $35,000, would do substantial harm to the district's athletic department and put student athletes at risk.

In order for resident requests to be met, it would require the restoration of nearly $1 million to the school budget, however.

During the March 21 meeting, Director Cheri A. Pelletier asked Kisiel that if the school district received more than what is included in Shanley’s proposal, but slightly less than the 4.5 percent increase that the superintendent had originally proposed to the school board, would it be sufficient and what would be left to cut. Pelletier said that in a budget where nearly 85 percent of the funding is earmarked to pay for salaries and benefits of personnel, the answer seemed obvious to her.

Kisiel said that he presented the list of reductions in a prioritized way and that an additional 1 percent added back to the school budget, bringing the increase to 4.1 percent, would “carry us through” and help take care of the public’s requests. However, he could not speak for the school board and say specifically what would be restored and what would be cut.

During the original school budget preparation, Kisiel had requested 4.5 percent more than the current year, but school board members tacked on an additional $1 million to the request to address school safety, capital projects and bolster the operating budget to improve student achievement.

At that meeting, Deputy Mayor Jay Moran asked Kisiel why, if those items were so important, the superintendent hadn’t included them in his original proposal.

The superintendent said he developed a budget that represented what he thought included all the necessary items and one that represents where he “would draw the line.” School board members reviewed the proposal and then asked whether it was truly enough, his answer was, “No.”

School board Chairman Chris Pattacini said the board added another $1 million to the request because members thought the three missing components – funding for improved school security, capital improvements and programs to boost student achievement – were necessary.

No decisions were made at the meeting on the fate of the school spending, but directors thanked Kisiel, Patticini and Patricia F. Brooks, assistant to the superintendent for finance and management, for their honest responses to questions, calling it a refreshing change.

Members also lamented the fact that they must approve a budget and set the tax rate before receiving final grant figures from the state.

The Board of Director will continue to hear from additional town departments about the specifics of their budgets before it is scheduled to vote on the entire municipal budget package on April 9.