City councilors in Greenfield, Massachusetts passed a budget put forward by the mayor, while falling short of a request for additional funds made by the school committee.
Mayor Ginny Desorgher says her nearly $68 million budget proposal came together amid a slew of “sobering meetings” with the Department of Revenue and bond counsel.
The city is coping with $74 million in outstanding debts, stemming in-part from construction projects like the new fire station and public library. Add in the usual culprits blowing up budgets across the region, like health insurance costs increasing by 20 percent or $1.8 million (to a total of $10.6 million) and the mayor says you get a budget where every department had cuts that were “hard to absorb.”
“The communities that are going to survive are the ones that start doing things differently, the ones that weigh every expense wisely and who are strategic and look for areas of saving and collaboration will be the successful ones,” she told city councilors this week.
Also worrying, she says, was the apparent “1-in-3” chance the DoR says the city has of its bond rating decreasing from AA-.
With that in mind, at Wednesday’s city council meeting carried by Greenfield Community Television, the mayor proceeded to question a request from the school committee that was on the agenda – an additional $350,000 for Greenfield Public Schools.
Superintendent Karin Patenaude told the council that as GPS uses significant reserve funds for its budget, having reserves for the next fiscal year and beyond are a major need.
School Committee Chair Glenn Johnson-Mussad says the superintendent’s original budget request was met not only with a lower figure by the mayor – but a cut of $254 compared to FY25 spending
“I know all the city departments are having to take some serious lumps this year, but we also want to make sure that we maintain essential services for our students and also, that we are well-positioned for what we expect to be an even harder year next year, especially with the possibility of federal funding cuts,” Johnson-Mussad said.
For context, the superintendent’s budget requested $25.6 million while the mayor’s proposal allotted $23.7 million.
That $350,000 requested was the most contentious item of the night.
Desorgher argued there has been “no detailed analysis by the school committee for the rationale for budgetary increases.”
She went as far as to claim “no one questioned” why the schools would need 13 new employees over the past two years as enrollment decreased by over a hundred students – and that, as the $350,000 was being requested, there was "not a discussion about exactly what that money was for."
Desorgher also serves on the school committee.
Councilor John Bottomley would point out the schools have access to over $5 million in revolving accounts, and how it’s spent is up to the superintendent and not the council.
Councilor Michael Terounzo added that in the past, the council's been able to find money for schools - only for various funds to not end up being needed and not returned to the general fund.
“I love the school system that’s here. My kids go to the same school I went to - it's phenomenal to go in there and see the activities and the changes, but what's also disheartening … is there's so much work being done by the people who are there, and then, yet, it seems like there might just be some – for lack of a better term - some mismanagement of how we're utilizing our money,” he said.
A simple majority of the council, however, largely empathized with the school funding request.
Council President Lora Wondolowski spoke of how a budget reflects a city’s values – and that cutting schools, even by $254, sends “a signal to this community that schools don't matter.”
Councilor Rachel Gordon remarked she had never heard any other department head seeking funding "questioned and doubted" the way she believed the superintendent had been in meetings like Wednesday's.
Agreeing with other councilors that something has to change budget process-wise, Councilor Marianne Bullock added that the superintendent took large amounts of time to explain her district’s situation to the councilor – answering some 150 questions Bullock says she’s asked since March.
“If you go back and you look at ‘17, ’18 ’19 - those revolving accounts were much lower and if you look at - and this is where we might not agree, but I can … really understand as a person in a leadership position, why Karin is choosing to do what she does - she's saying ‘This is my budget number’ because she's already entered into contracts with people for next year,” Bullock said. “Our teachers have already gone through choosing what schools they were going to move to when we were consolidating the buildings differently. Teachers made plans and gave up concessions based on [factor] like they have one kid in this school, and if they went to that school, they wouldn't be able to pick their other kid up on time.”
The councilor added how, according to the superintendent, while there’s $5.3 million in revolving accounts, there’s $1.2 million in unpaid FY25 expenses and with the school budget already calling for about another $2.2 million from reserves, and likely to draw more, about a million will be left.
The council voted 7-5 on the $350,000 funding amendment, failing as it came up short of the needed two-thirds majority.
However, the council did approve raising school funding by $254, ultimately maintaining spending levels from last year.
Earlier in the meeting, Johnson-Mussad indicated the school committee already committed to using $2.1 million in revolving funds (as later mentioned by Bullock) and would require an additional $765,000 in reserves to preserve staffing and services.
