KENSINGTON — School officials presented a proposed $4,500,298 operating budget for the Kensington School District at the district’s deliberative session, and residents debated two citizen-petition warrant articles that would limit future district budgets and push for an outside financial review.

School business officials and the district’s superintendent, appearing at the deliberative session moderated by Harold Bragg, told voters the proposed 2025–26 operating budget represents a $128,000, or roughly 2.9 percent, increase over last year. Administrators identified the main cost drivers as facilities and maintenance (about an $35,000 increase), special education (about $34,000), and employee benefits (about $58,000, largely for insurance and retirement expenses). Officials estimated the budget change would add about $0.19 per $1,000 of assessed value; using district valuation examples, they said a $500,000 home would see an approximate $93 annual tax impact.

The district and SAU staff briefed voters on other budget-related items on the warrant: three expendable trust requests (up to $10,000 for special education, $10,000 for building repair and maintenance, and $5,000 for technology). Officials said the special‑education and building repair trust accounts each hold about $77,000 and the technology fund about $5,000; the trusts are funded from available fund balance and intended as a buffer against unanticipated, large outlays such as out‑of‑district special‑education placements.

A contentious part of the evening focused on two citizen petitions that would change how the school budget is set. Article 5 would direct the district to adopt a per‑pupil cap (proposing $28,500 per pupil, adjusted annually by CPI‑U), multiplied by the district’s average daily membership in residents; proponents argued the cap is a “common‑sense” way to control taxes. Opponents, including multiple parents and district representatives, said the proposed cap would force cuts to teachers, buses and services and fail to account for unpredictable costs such as high‑need special‑education placements that can exceed $200,000 per student.

Article 6 originally asked the district’s SAU representatives to call for an “internal controls review” by an accredited accounting firm. During the deliberative session voters amended that petition twice: first to narrow the request so it would be a single, explicit review (the amendment passed by a hand count shown in the minutes), and later to replace the phrase “internal controls review” with a request for an “annual financial report” by an accredited accounting firm. Those amendments were accepted at the session and the article (as amended) will appear on the ballot. Legal counsel and district administrators noted that an independent financial statement audit would likely cost on the order of $10,000–$15,000 and that, if the article passed, the expense would need to be funded from the district operating budget (not as an additional raise‑and‑appropriate item unless specifically warned).

Public comment at length covered per‑pupil cost figures, trust‑fund accounting, the district’s audit process and state funding. Proponents of the cap cited a district per‑pupil figure they calculated at roughly $31,000–$31,500 and argued that the district is spending well above state and national averages. District staff and other residents disputed direct apples‑to‑apples comparisons, and district officials explained the state’s cost‑per‑pupil calculation is based on actual expenditures minus certain items (tuition/transportation) divided by average daily membership. Administrators said the district’s ADM for 2023–24 used in state calculations was about 40.6.

The session also addressed an auditor’s finding related to timing of bank reconciliations (so‑called “6/30 runs”): the district’s local auditor and business staff explained the difference was a timing/recording discrepancy between accounting system reports and bank reconciliations and that controls were being strengthened to avoid recurrence. Business staff provided a near‑term projection for the district’s year‑end balance (about $638,000) and discussed trust account ceilings and usage policy.

After the deliberative session closed, the Kensington School Board briefly reconvened and recorded a motion that the board would not endorse articles 5 and 6 on the ballot; the motion carried. The board also approved routine items earlier in the public session, including approval of prior meeting minutes, and appointed Molly O’Keefe to serve as school clerk for the deliberative session.

Why it matters: The deliberative session finalized the district’s articles and sent them to the March ballot with amendments. A voter decision on Article 5 could constrain future budgets or force significant program and staff reductions; Article 6 would require an independent financial review if voters approve the amended language. Many decisions raised questions about the limits of local authority: district staff repeatedly noted that some major cost pressures (special‑education needs; health‑insurance inflation; state adequacy funding) are influenced by factors beyond the local board’s control.

What’s next: The articles as amended will appear on the town ballot in March. If Article 6 (annual financial report) passes, district officials said they will need to identify funding within the operating budget or at a future warrant to cover the review’s cost. If Article 5 (per‑pupil cap) passed, administrators and several speakers said the district would likely have to seek large, immediate budget reductions (including teacher positions and transportation changes) or hold a special meeting to reconcile statutory obligations versus the capped amount.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to approve 01/06/2025 public‑session minutes: motion made during the meeting and approved by voice vote.
- Motion to appoint Molly O’Keefe as school clerk for the deliberative session: approved by voice vote. (Clerk served at session.)
- Motion to restrict reconsideration of articles 1–4 (school operating budget and the three trust articles): motion carried at the deliberative session.
- Article 6 amendments: voters in the session accepted an initial amendment (hand count recorded in the minutes) and then accepted a second amendment replacing “internal controls review” with “annual financial report”; the article as amended will appear on the ballot with the amended language. Minutes show the first amendment carried on a hand tally reported in the session; a later amendment also carried.
- School Board action after the session: the board voted to record its opposition to Articles 5 and 6 on the ballot; motion carried by voice vote.

Discussion vs. decisions
- Discussion: extensive public comment on trust funds, per‑pupil cost, special‑education cost drivers, and the merits/risks of a budget cap and of commissioning an outside financial review.
- Direction/assignment: staff and business office said they will add controls to bank‑reconciliation procedures; business staff said they would seek quotes and timing if an external audit was directed by voters.
- Formal outcomes: multiple routine motions approved during the session; Article 6 was amended on the floor and forwarded to the ballot; the school board publicly recorded non‑endorsement of Articles 5 and 6.

Community context: The debate reflected tensions common in small New England districts: declining enrollment, high fixed costs (building maintenance, buses, special‑education placements), and low relative state support for education. Several residents urged state‑level advocacy for more adequacy funding; others urged local spending constraints.