New London ― Board of Education President Elaine Maynard-Adams considers herself a pragmatist, someone resigned to the give-and-take compromises that mark every budget approval cycle.

But her first reaction to Mayor Michael Passero’s 2024-25 budget proposal on Monday came straight from the gut.

“I thought, ‘Oh my God, what are we going to do now,’” she said on Wednesday, referencing Passero’s plan to trim the board’s proposed spending increase for next year by millions.

Passero’s recommended budget drew immediate criticism from other education leaders just minutes after it was unveiled.

“If the current proposal remains unchanged through the budget process, the Board of Education will be forced to fund additional cuts totaling $3.5 million,” Board of Education member Bryan Doughty said on Monday, adding there were “not enough small places in the budget” to find such savings. “And therefore, the Board of Education will most likely have to turn to larger items that I doubt anyone wants to consider cutting.”

Passero’s plan sets aside $46.8 million for the board, or $916,000 more than the current year ― a sharp drop from the $50.8 million proposal approved by the school board in February that carried a $4.8 million spending increase.

Because the state educational grant funding is not expected to increase, city taxpayers will be asked to fund about 5.4%, or $1.2 million, more in education compared to the current year under Passero’s plan.

Doughty calculated that Passero’s budget translates to the board getting about 20% of its initial funding request. He said that amount would not even cover contractual employee salary and benefit increases for the coming year, let alone a slate of new unfunded state mandates ― including the disbursement of free menstrual products in schools ― the district must cover.

“Why don’t we cut our communication department?” he asked. “Our non-athletic clubs? All of our field trips, delay facility and building repairs? Cut all sports and close (the early childhood center)? At a quick glance, that closes the $3.5 million gap.”

Doughty’s concerns resonated with City Councilor Jefferey Hart, a former school board member who warned of the dangers of underfunding the district.

“I will take every effort and explore every possibility to restore the funding to the level the superintendent requested,” he said.

Passero’s $104 million budget proposal calls for a 2% increase to the general government and education sides of the spending plans. The budget increases, driven by a the results of a recent property revaluation, would translate to an average residential tax bill increase of $750, the first jump in years.

Council President Efrain Dominguez Jr. noted Passero’s presentation marked just the start of a long budget process that will continue over the next few weeks with individual hearings, including one on April 17 with the Board of Education.

“I look forward to working with the Council on the proposed budget and hearing suggestions from the BOE on how to fund an additional $3.5 million,” Passero said in an emailed statement Wednesday. “Obviously, they understand that the families in the city cannot absorb any further increase in their property taxes. The city’s primary source of revenue is property taxes and we dedicate half of the tax revenue raised to fund the schools.”

Maynard-Adams, who previously acknowledged the board’s budget plan was unlikely to survive without undergoing deep cuts by the mayor and City Council, said crafting a budget for the upcoming year was particularly challenging with the loss of $10.9 million in federal pandemic relief dollars.

“We plan to continue inquiring about state funding with our legislators and will implore the City Council to take a sharp look at (the mayor’s) budget,” she said. “My greatest fear is losing the early childhood education programs that cost us $2.5 million a year to run. But everything is on the table, including reductions to teaching staff.”

j.penney@theday.com