Questions from the Public - FY27 Budget
Community Questions and District Answers
Please complete this form with your questions about the FY27 Proposed Budget. Responses will be posted in the space below within 24 - 48 hours.
Question:
What is the status of the accounting audit that has been delayed for months? Where can it be found so voters can look at it? It seems this would be a good resource to post if you want voters to feel confident in the way things are being run, particularly with increases.
Answer:
The annual audit is submitted to the Agency of Education (AOE) by March 31, in accordance with state requirements. The audit is also posted on the Business Office website, where you can find both the current report and prior years’ audits for review. We agree that transparency is important and want to ensure voters have easy access to this information. Please contact the business manager if you have any questions.
The auditors will attend a board meeting May 4th to publicly discuss the audit findings.
Question:
You mention Dr. Roy's September audit and referenced it to indicate that staffing levels were at appropriate levels for a district this size. However, would you elaborate on the deficits and areas of need the report also mentions?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. You can find answers regarding our plan for addressing areas of growth in slides 20-38 on this Slideshow. Following Dr. Roy’s presentation, I presented the district's response. I spoke in depth about our plan for addressing the areas for which findings indicated need for improvement. Verbal elaboration on the slides can be found in the recordings of that board meeting in September.
Question:
The FY24 BUUSD Financial Statements state: "In July 2024 the District borrowed $7,370,781 on a $7,370,781 line of credit in the form of a 5.59% current expense note which matures on June 30, 2025." Is the District saying this note is in the audited financial statements is incorrect?
Answer:
The FY24 audited financial statements are correct. In July 2024, the District established a $7,370,781 current expense line of credit that was available through June 30, 2025. This type of note is a standard cash-flow management tool used by school districts to ensure funds are available if timing differences occur between expenses and tax revenue. The District established this line of credit because there was no approved budget to begin the fiscal year.
While the full amount of the line of credit is disclosed in the financial statements, it does not mean the District borrowed those funds. The line represents the maximum amount available if needed, not the amount actually drawn.
During FY25, the District did not draw any funds from this line of credit, and therefore, no interest was incurred or paid. The District was able to manage cash flow using existing fund balance reserves instead.
In summary, the line of credit was established and disclosed appropriately in the audited financial statements, but it ultimately was not utilized.
Question:
1) What amount of interest was paid during FY25 on the $7.37 million dollar line of credit/revenue anticipation note drawn in July 2024 at 5.59%?
2) What financial institution issued the loan?
3) Has the district used a line of credit/revenue anticipation note in FY26, and if it did what are the details of that loan (amount, interest rate, date drawn, amount repaid to date)?
Answer:
1) The district obtained authorization for a $7.37 million Current Expense Note in July 2024 at an interest rate of 5.59% due to uncertainty around the timing of the FY25 budget approval. However, because the budget was ultimately approved and the district had sufficient cash on hand, the note was never drawn upon. As a result, no funds were borrowed and no interest was incurred or paid in FY25.
2) The note authorization was arranged through Community Bank.
3) The district has not used a line of credit or revenue anticipation note in FY26. The district maintains sufficient fund balance reserves, which allow us to manage normal cash-flow timing differences during the year without borrowing.
Question: Does the proposed budget take into consideration the Legislature buying down property taxes in the tax rate? Or is there a possibility of a lower tax rate after the Legislature passes the yield and makes a final decision on the buy down? What if they chose not to buy down property taxes? What funds make up the $57.8 million? Does this include and federal or special funds, or is the amount just the education fund? What is the balance in the stabilization reserve and is it enough for future years when budgets continue to be a challenge to balance?
Answer: The Legislature and Governor are still talking about reducing tax rate pressures but nothing has been decided as of yet. The yield decision usually shakes out in May.
The General Fund makes up the $57.8 and this does not include our federal and state grants. The balance in the Tax Stabilization fund is currently a little over $900,000. Is this enough to cover future years? Our inclination is to say no. The Board however, can add to this fund if we have a reserve at end of a fiscal year.
Question: The FY27 estimated tax rate for Barre Town appears to be 1.428. I assume that means $1.428 per $100 of property assessed value. If the current rate is 1.199, it would appear that for Barre Town we will be looking at a 19% increase in our tax rate ($0.229 per $100 assessed value) since our assessments are not changing due to any sort of reappraisal. If I have figured that correctly, that seems to be a pretty steep increase in property taxes.
Answer: The current rate for Barre Town is 1.212 and the Board approved budget would increase that to 1.428, it is a 17.85% increase on the tax rate.
Question: The budget slideshow notes that the number of students receiving special education services has increased (in 2025, it is 592 and in 2015, it was 514), yet the number of special educators has decreased (in 2025, it is 36 and in 2015, it was 40) and support staff has dramatically decreased (in 2025, it is 54.5 and in in 2015, it was 104).
Can you explain the reasoning behind having less staff when a higher number of students need services?
Answer: We can't speak to the needs from a decade ago. Please see the slideshow from a board presentation in September 2025 - that outlines how our staffing falls at or above the needs per student population. This was outlined for both professional staff and support staff. Per our recent special education review conducted by Dr. Meagan Roy:
- BUUSD has sufficient levels of professional staff by typical metrics to serve a system of its size, and is not "understaffed," even when adjustments are made for staff vacancies
Question: Can you also clarify whether the number of positions includes unfilled staff and/or remote services and/or contracted services?
Answer: Yes, those are included.
Question: If the numbers of staff have decreased because positions can't be filled, can you explain the plan for recruiting and retaining staff?
Answer: Staff positions have not decreased as a result of unfilled positions. As explained above, our staffing numbers (both professional and support staff) are sufficient to support students in special education.
- At this time (1/13/26) , we have 1 professional staff vacancy - 1 special educator
- Unfilled Support Staff:
- 3 Behavior Interventionists
- 3 PreK Paras unfilled
- 2 Behavior Specialists
- 1 Autism Specialist
- 2 Permanent Subs
Question: If the numbers of staff have decreased because of budget decisions over the years, can you identify what part of the BUUSD Strategic Plan that aligns with?
Answer: We have not reduced positions related to budget needs.
BUUSD has sufficient levels of professional staff and support staff by typical metrics to serve a system of its size, and is not "understaffed", even when adjustments are made for staff vacancies.
Our efforts are toward professional development and use of our staffing resources to address the needs of our special education population.
Question: Considering special education services and costs, can you answer the following please:
1. If there was no SEA program and those students required an outside placement, can you share an estimated cost of those combined placements? Along those lines, is there an approximate amount the district has saved by having an alternative school within the district?
2. Thinking along those lines, are there plans to decrease the amount of money being spent on services contracted out of the district for special education services (Green Mtn, Washington County, remote case managers, etc...)? I understand there may always be some need, but is there a plan to build systems and services and programs within the district which would lead to some savings in the future?
Answer: Here is a link to a special education presentation slide show that should answer many of these questions.
1. Reference Slide 10 - Here is a breakdown if ALL 38 currently enrolled SEA students were outplaced.
Extended School Year (summer school) placement costs = up to $15,000 per student
School year placement cost = $81,250 - $136,472 per student
ESY transport total for out of district placements = $64,000
School year transport for out of district placements = $447,000
Total tuition cost range for 12 months for 38 students = $3,087,500 to $5,755,936
Total transportation for 38 additional students = $746,846
Total: $3,834,346 to $6,502,782 to place all 38 SEA students Out of District (costs from 25-26 school year) compared to 25-26 SEA Operating Budget: $1,391,000
2. Reference Slides 3, 4, 5 - We discussed the building and sustaining of a robust in-house extended learning program and oversight of comprehensive support plans to address student needs in the building. Additionally, we discussed the professional development and alignment of job descriptions and hiring processes for all our BUUSD support staff. Both the professional development and the alignment of expectations and roles/responsibilities will (and already has) led to keeping students a) in the building, b) without additional adult support, and c) increased access to universal instruction in the classroom. The professional development allows us to rely on our support staff with collecting data to inform decision making regarding the need for support staff.
Question: Where is the data to support the "industry standard of $1 per square foot" for maintenance?
Answer: We appreciate this question and the opportunity to clarify. The $1 per square foot figure is a planning benchmark in facilities management, including guidance from organizations such as the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO), APPA (Facilities Management), and state-level school facilities studies. These sources generally estimate that 1-4% of a building’s replacement value, which often aligns with roughly $1 per square foot for older school buildings, is needed annually for routine maintenance.
BUUSD has made significant investments in recent years, including districtwide lighting upgrades and HVAC improvements, to improve efficiency and learning conditions. Our buildings are older and we believe they require ongoing maintenance to protect those investments and avoid more costly emergency repairs. The School Board's current budget proposal includes the $1 per square foot figure proposal.
Question: Why is the BUUSD not decreasing the number of staff in proportion to the loss of students?
Answer: We appreciate this question, as enrollment trends are an important part of responsible budgeting. The BUUSD has a class size policy that helps provide guidance in response to declining enrollment and to this end, there will be a reduction in the number of classrooms and in departments that provide other services. However, the School Board is also aware that our grant funds are reducing and we currently have approximately 11 positions in these grants that we are trying to move over to the general operating budget when attrition occurs or when a reduction in classrooms is necessary due to class size. These 11 positions provide additional support to students in need of academic interventions that are supplemental to classroom instruction. The School Board understands that these positions are a critical part of our strategy to improve learning outcomes for all students.
The budget the administrators have put forth reflects a careful balance, adjusting staffing where possible while preserving core classroom instruction, student services, and safety so that students continue to receive the support they need.
Question: With the Central Vermont Career Center (CVCC) potentially ending their rental agreement, why would Barre not consider bringing back the students in the SEA program relocated to another building? About 5 years ago in BUUSD meetings, prior to construction of the building on Allen St., BUUSD knew that CVCC had offered to leave when BUUSD/ SHS were discussing renting alternative spaces for students because they did not have the room. CVCC said they need space that is better suited for their programs needs and would relocate. They spent money on a feasibility study and put years into the work of planning a new building and redistricting work because SHS said they needed the space. This was supposed to save Barre residents money. Then, in the same year, BUUSD put out a request on the ballot for a new building, right after requesting CVCC leave and research was underway. The promise was that there would be space for all ages to attend so that students were no longer being outsourced and saving on that expense. After construction, it was noted that a mistake was made on the plans and the expansion was not possible because the land that BUUSD thought they owned, they did not. Now the building does not serve the age populations that was indicated to the community when the request was made. Consolidation is going to happen. BUUSD needs to consider what regions, and towns within those regions, may be consolidating and open up options for connecting towns within the Central Vermont Region to attend Barre schools, or at least consider closing the school on Allen Street and the BUUSD building to save on expenses. We are hearing that classrooms are not at capacity. This means that there is space for BUUSD staff to relocate to being inside the school buildings. I see this as an advantage. BUUSD administrative staff will be better able to make recommendations for updates and changes when they have a better view of how school structures are working.
Answer: Thank you for taking the time to share such thoughtful and detailed input. We appreciate the historical context you provided and the care you have taken to connect past decisions with the questions the district is facing today.
As we move forward under the state’s restructuring plan through Act 73, it is very possible that there will be opportunities to revisit and reassess how Barre Unified Union School District uses its buildings and space. With the likelihood of increased collaboration or consolidation with neighboring districts, these questions about facilities, capacity, and program placement are timely and important.
The Board will be engaging in conversations with other neighboring boards as part of this work, and community engagement will be a critical part of that process. Ideas such as those you have raised—regarding building utilization, regional connections, administrative space, and long-term planning—are exactly the kinds of perspectives that help inform thoughtful decision-making.
We encourage continued community involvement as these discussions unfold, and we thank you again for contributing your insights to the FY27 budget conversation.
Question: Barre Town student demographics show that 197 students, or 25% of the student population, are in Special Education, and 44% of students are living at or below the poverty line. Do we know what percentage of the Special Education students fall within that 44% of students living in poverty?
Answer: 34% of students at Barre Town on an IEP qualify for one of SNAP, Med130, and Med185