GREENFIELD — In the wake of the mayor’s proposed $1.5 million cut to the School Department’s fiscal year 2024 budget, Superintendent Christine DeBarge is emphasizing to councilors that she is concerned not only about the coming school year, but also the following fiscal year as the city’s schools face pressure to rely on one-time grant funds for staffing.

“We’re feeling the impact looking at FY24, but I fear that is not any impact given what we could be looking at in FY25,” DeBarge told councilors at Monday’s Ways & Means Committee meeting. “If we can use less grant funds for people next year, that allows us to be that much further away from the cliff in some places. Any step back away from that funding cliff is going to be of benefit to our students.”

Mayor Roxann Wedegartner’s proposed $61.6 million operating budget, which will continue to be reviewed by the Ways & Means Committee before appearing before the full City Council next month, reduces the School Department’s requested increase over the current fiscal year’s numbers from 10.35% to 3%.

Andy Paquette of TMS, who serves as the district’s business manager, told councilors on Monday that roughly 91% of the increase to the department’s proposed $23.15 million budget can be attributed to contractual raises. This was the cumulative effect of recent contract agreements that included salary increases for FY23 and FY24, he said.

According to the FY24 budget, the department plans to use an estimated $6 million in grant money. Of that, $1 million in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grants have been allocated to support staffing. Other grants used to offset the budget include Title I, Title IIA, Title IV and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

According to DeBarge, the mayor’s proposed cuts could result in the loss of several teaching positions across the district, the withdrawal of previous requests for new staff for first grade and the loss of middle school athletics, as well as a reduction to instructional supplies, special education transportation, and special education testing kits and supplies.

DeBarge also noted her proposed budget already included losing the fourth-grade band, as well as the elimination of positions that were unfilled, including the assistant special education director position, a float nurse position and a float custodian position.

“The state of the schools ... reflects strongly on the condition of this town and how we value our children and how we value our future,” said resident Louise Amyot, one of a handful of residents and teachers to speak during public comment on Monday.

At-Large Councilor Christine Forgey asked DeBarge to explain some of the more significant changes in local appropriations between FY23 and FY24, including the 743% decrease in the personnel line item and the 78% increase at Greenfield Middle School.

Paquette said that the sharp decrease in the local appropriation for personnel between fiscal years was a reflection of the $1 million ESSER grant that will be allocated toward staffing. The last of these emergency funds expire on Sept. 30, 2024.

“We wanted to capture our use of the ESSER funds to offset this budget, but we have yet to go through the exercise as to which personnel we’re going to be using,” Paquette said, noting those funds weren’t originally intended for personnel but for technology.

As for the 78% increase in the local appropriation between FY23 and FY24 at Greenfield Middle School, DeBarge said the district has chosen to allocate its School Choice funds to be used at the Middle School. Those funds were used in the current fiscal year at the high school.

Although not discussed by councilors on Monday, DeBarge explained at the School Committee budget hearing in March that the 176% increase over the current fiscal year at Central Office was because Director of Facilities Eric Hevy moved some of the maintenance and custodial expenses out of the building lines and into Central Office, “as they’re more centralized.” She also noted Hevy identified some reoccurring costs, such as fire extinguisher maintenance, for example, that had not previously been represented in the custodial budget.

Councilors briefly discussed alternative funding sources that could be used to help bridge the superintendent’s proposed budget with the mayor’s reduction.

“If somehow the money came forward, we should still be advocating for this entire amount,” said Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub.

Suggestions brought forward included free cash or stabilization accounts. Golub mentioned the 7 capital requests, some of which were to be funded using free cash, that were turned down by City Council last week.

“It is not good policy to use all of your stabilization accounts to fund an operating budget,” Wedegartner said on Monday. “The problem with that is you create a funding cliff for next year.”

Depleting stabilization accounts, she added, would also “significantly impact borrowing for the next year.”

Wedegartner told councilors she had a meeting last week with DeBarge and Paquette “to discuss how we might be able to resolve some of this.” She cautioned it likely wouldn’t be the full amount.

Forgey said while she finds DeBarge to be “highly credible” and understands the School Department is at a tipping point, “it’s also a tipping point for all of us.”

“I want to work with you to get through this budget cycle, but I also want to advocate for political pressure being put on our different organizations, different funding sources, because there will come a time when … you can’t fund everything via a grant,” Forgey cautioned. “You can seek as many grants as you want but in the long-run, where is that going to get you if a grant is a finite piece of money?”

Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.

]]>