OPINION: Harwood FY27 School Budget: A little context

February 2, 2026  |  By Steven Martin

The discussion begins on the proposed school budget, described in the budget warning (and a recent FPF post) as a per-pupil expenditure increase of 4.8%. I'll have more to say on the per-pupil cost in the future, but for now, let's just clarify that the actual school budget requested is a 5.44% increase.

Two years ago, in their Feb. 14, 2024, presentation, our school district first requested an FY25 budget of $50,844,703 that would have been an 11.94% increase over the prior year. Under expenses for the first budget, they listed a 9.22% increase in employee salaries and a 14.49% increase in benefits. 

In a February 18, 2024, Waterbury Roundabout article, then board member Ashley Woods was quoted saying, “I am optimistic that we will pass this budget because there isn't any fluff in it. We should take it to Town Meeting and let the people decide.” The voters decided NO.

The second attempt to pass an FY25 Budget asked for $48,888,319, a 7.63% increase, including an 8.53% increase in employee salaries and 12.66% increase in benefits. An April 21, 2024, Waterbury Roundabout article quoted school board member Ben Clark saying: “It’s a broken system. It’s certainly not something we created,” he said, noting that Harwood leaders are participating in discussions around a solution. “We are one school district; we can only do so much.” But he challenged the view that rejecting the revised budget is the answer. “I feel like that message has already been given… the state’s already heard us,” he said. “I feel like the state is scrambling to find a new system.” However, once again, voters said NO.

The third attempt to pass the FY25 budget asked for $47,892,873, a 5.44% increase over the prior year. At the same time, in January, Social Security had just granted recipients a 3.2% cost-of-living-adjustment. This budget had pared down employee salaries to a 5.72% increase, with benefits increasing 9.38%. Budget No.3 was approved by the voters. 

In my opinion, approval was the result of voter fatigue and the growing belief that Montpelier had received the voters' message and would be seriously addressing the problem of escalating education costs and skyrocketing property taxes associated with a completely dysfunctional state education system. 

The point here is that voter disapproval of the first two budgets resulted in the final FY25 budget being reduced by $2,951,830 (5.8%) compared to the original request. That is the power of voting NO.

In 2025, the FY26 budget passed on the first vote. At $49,209,927, this was an increase of 2.75%. Our Social Security recipients had just received a 2.5% cost-of-living-adjustment.

Here we are about to vote on an FY27 school budget of $51,884,847, an increase of 5.44% over last year. As I write this, seniors just received their 2.8% Social Security increase (well, 2.8% before they deducted the 9.68% increase in Medicare premiums). Once again, we are hearing excuses, reasons why little is in control of the school district, and why you must vote to pass the budget – for the kids.

Let's summarize the above facts:

FY25 - Budget $47,892,873 (+5.44%); SS COLA Increase (+3.2%)

FY26 - Budget $49,209,927 (+2.75%); SS COLA Increase (+2.5%)

FY27 – Budget request $51,884,847 (+5.44%); SS COLA Increase (+2.8%)

As you probably realize, increases, like interest, compound over time. The cumulative effect of FY25 through FY27, if the FY27 budget is approved, will be: School Budget (+14.2%); SS COLA (+8.7%). And property taxes in our district and the state are growing at a much higher rate than the budget.

Now consider this: had voters not twice-rejected the FY25 budget requests two years ago, the three-year cumulative effects through FY27 (if approved) would have been: School Budget (+21.3%) vs Social Security (+8.7%).

So, the rejection of our school budget, along with many other school districts rejecting theirs (some multiple times), did make a difference.

Though I think the school board, by giving the administration direction to just stay under the spending penalty cap, has demonstrated that they want to spend as much as they can get away with instead of doing some serious brainstorming on other possibilities, I also agree with them that a huge part of the problem is the cumulative effect of rules, regulations, mandates, etc. that the Legislature has added over time -- all while Vermont's student performance apparently declines. 

What actual changes to address the broken system have you seen in the two years since the “Tax Revolt” occurred?

Satisfied with progress? Maybe vote yes.

Less than satisfied? Maybe vote no.

Be sure to send the message you intend to send with your vote.

How ever it turns out, I bet we get what we deserve.

Steven Martin is retired and lives in Waterbury.