By Avice Meehan

The Board of Education will hold a special meeting on Thursday, March 4, to vote on a proposed $2.658 million budget for the next fiscal year. It would represent an increase of 4.47 percent or $113,665 over the budget for the current year.

Superintendent Kevin Case presented the spending plan on Feb. 24, two weeks later than expected because of an earlier, weather-relat-ed cancellation. He walked the board through a high-level summary of areas in which spending would go up, including $43,962 for health insurance and $24,988 in contractual salary increases, and areas in which spending would decline. The latter category includes reduced spending for special education transportation, therapists and office support.

The budget anticipates enrollment of 58 students, an increase of three students over the current year, and the addition of a half-time paraprofessional to work with pre-kindergarten students. Proposed spending for classroom education is $705,598, an increase of $36,182 or 5.4 percent over the current year. The cost to provide special education services—always a volatile category in a small school district—would decline to $532,397 or nearly 2 percent. Roughly 20 percent of Botelle’s students have individualized education plans or IEPs with an additional number of students having disability accommodations that require specialized support.

Board Chair John DeShazo said the Board of Finance has been supportive of Botelle and would identify additional funds if new students enter the district with complex educational needs. He and Case plan to present the budget at the board’s March 10 meeting. In fact, it was a major decrease in special education spending at the end of the last school year that has caused Norfolk to run afoul of the state’s minimum budget requirement or MBR. For several years, the school budget included $185,000 for a placement outside the district for a special needs student. When that individual moved out of Norfolk, the impact was immediate and the town approved a fiscal 2025-26 budget of $2,545,203 that represented a drop of $58,366 from the year before.

Case is still trying to set up a meeting with officials in the state Department of Education to argue that Norfolk should not be penalized, although special education costs are not included in the state’s list of allowable exceptions. The potential penalty? The state would hold back $100,000 in educational cost sharing funds for the 2027-28 fiscal year. The challenge is that Norfolk receives only about half that amount in state funding.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Case said. He agreed to alert State Rep. Maria Horn and State Sen. Paul Honig to the situation, noting that the MBR posed challenges for smaller, rural school districts. Overall, members of the Board of Education praised Case’s thoughtful approach to the budget and his careful review of line items and the underlying expenses. Board member Amy Bennett expressed concern about whether the proposed budget had room “for surprises” and Case responded by saying that it had “no cushion,” but that teachers and students are well resourced.

A proposed reduction in the textbook line item of $2,800 generated considerable discussion with board member Walter God-lewski raising concerns about the “optics” of the decrease. The overall line item stands at $15,000, in addition to separate line items for library books and related materials. Case said he appreciated the feedback but noted that students would not be shortchanged.

A proposed $7,000 increase in legal fees, from $5,000 to $7,000, was also discussed at length. Case said negotiations on a new, three-year teacher contract would begin in August and explained that, in his experience, a lawyer plays an important role in representing the Board of Education. Several newer members questioned the need for legal representation and/or the need to have a lawyer present during negotiations. Veteran member Donna Rubin, who also serves on the Personnel Committee, ended the conversation by recalling a negotiation that went to 3 a.m. and only came to a successful conclusion when the district’s attorney urged the parties to sign because he was going home.