A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the discussion of fixed costs, particularly in relation to salaries tied to collective bargaining agreements, transportation contracts, and special education tuition costs. The high expenses associated with out-of-district placements for special needs students were highlighted, with costs ranging from $60,000 to $140,000 per student annually. To mitigate these expenses, the school department proposed adding a full-time special education teacher and a van, a move aimed at keeping students in-district and reducing costs. This proposal, costing $133,000, was framed as a necessary measure to prevent more significant expenditures.

The town administrator provided a broader context, noting an increase in payments to the city of New Bedford for water services, which added over $100,000 to the budget. Despite a projected town budget increase of $22,000, excluding uncontrollable costs, the town faces constraints, with an overall increase being $50,000 less than the previous year. The committee members voiced concerns about the sustainability of the school budget, with one member stating, “$700,000 isn’t even in the same zip code,” highlighting the disparity between the school’s budget request and the town’s financial limitations.

The debate extended to staffing levels and service provision, with questions raised about the addition of nearly a million dollars in staff since 2019, despite an 8% decline in student enrollment. The need for mental health services was cited as a justification for maintaining current staffing levels. However, calls for a realistic budget plan were made, with members urging the school department to propose alternative solutions in light of the town’s financial challenges.

Tensions were evident as discussions turned to the perceived attitude of the school department regarding funding expectations. A heated exchange underscored the frustration felt by committee members, who emphasized the need for a solution that works for everyone. Concerns were raised about the reliance on state funding, with a member noting, “We have no growth year-over-year. We rely heavily on the state.”

The conversation also touched upon the sustainability of current budgetary strategies, with a focus on long-term planning to address contractual obligations and prevent drastic cuts to the school system. The potential for closed school buildings in the future was mentioned. The committee recognized the importance of balancing immediate needs with long-term implications, noting that current budget decisions must be made with foresight.

Further discussions revolved around the impact of special education costs, which had risen significantly, and the broader implications of these fixed costs on the budget. The necessity of maintaining two school nurses, as required by state mandates, was also discussed. The ongoing need for additional staffing to meet educational needs, despite declining enrollment, remained a contentious issue.

The school committee acknowledged the cyclical nature of these budget discussions, calling for a deeper analysis into staffing and operational costs. A participant highlighted the need to communicate with residents about potential tax increases, suggesting that if residents valued school services, they should have the opportunity to express their willingness to pay for them. Previous attempts at tax overrides had failed, with a recent vote showing a 75% margin against a relatively modest increase.