## The short version
Chicopee now spends about $14.65 million a year to bus students to school, double what it spent in 2018. Last night I asked the School Committee to study whether we can do it smarter: shorter bus routes, sending kids to schools closer to home, and making better use of school buildings that are half empty. The goal is to save up to $5 million a year without cutting a single teacher, program, or service, and without raising taxes. Some councilors said things about my proposal that simply aren't true. Below are the facts, followed by my full remarks from the meeting.
You can watch the full meeting on [ChicopeeTV](https://vimeo.com/1237802192), or explore the [interactive School Efficiency Order page](school-efficiency/index.html) for the numbers, the plan and clips from the meeting.
## Setting the record straight
I have served on both the Chicopee School Committee and the City Council. I have sat on both sides of the table, and I know how these budgets work. The School Department's budget (the money that pays for teachers, classrooms, and school programs) and the City's school transportation budget (the money that pays for school buses) are two separate things. The School Committee controls its own budget. Transportation is under the City's control and is paid for by the City. Every member of the Council should know that.
Several statements made during last night's debate were incorrect. Here are the facts.
### "No one spoke to the School Committee."
Several colleagues criticized me for not consulting the School Committee. So I asked for a show of hands. The order had been on the agenda for a week, yet apart from Councilor McAuliffe, not one councilor said they had spoken with the School Committee liaison (the School Committee member assigned to keep the City Council informed). When I asked who had spoken with the City Auditor (the official who tracks and reviews the City's spending) about this issue, only President Laflamme and I had. Meanwhile, I had already spoken with School Committee liaison Grace Schofield, with Bob Canton, and with the Superintendent during the June budget process, and I raised this issue then. (Show of hands at about 1:13 in the [meeting video](https://vimeo.com/1237802192))
### "This order cuts busing to the Boys & Girls Club, and parents won't be able to work."
An "order" is a formal request or proposal voted on by the City Council. Councilor Arriaga argued that this order would take busing away from working families and after-school programs like the Boys & Girls Club. There is not one sentence in the order that does that.
What went unmentioned was pointed out later by Councilor Brooks: many children attend after-school care at the Boys & Girls Club and YMCA through vouchers (financial assistance that helps families pay for a child's care), and families remain eligible for those vouchers even when both parents work. In his words, "I think what Abby left out, and she probably did it by design… their after-school care is provided by a voucher." (About 1:19–1:20 in the [meeting video](https://vimeo.com/1237802192))
Nothing in this order touches those vouchers or the rides that get children to their programs. Efficiency does not mean elimination.
### "We're taking away from our children's education."
School transportation does not come out of the School Department's budget. It is paid from the City's own funds. State law separates the two: Chapter 70 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the state's school funding law, requires the City to fund the school budget "in addition to" what it spends on student transportation ([Chapter 70, Section 6](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter70/Section6)). Saving money on transportation takes nothing out of a classroom.
### "The City is in great financial shape, so why are we even having this conversation?"
Here are the facts. Until yesterday afternoon, Chicopee was less than $1 million away from its levy limit, the legal cap on how much the City can raise in property taxes. Going past that cap requires a Proposition 2½ override, which is a citywide vote to raise property taxes beyond the normal legal limit. With new growth added (new tax revenue from new homes, businesses, and construction), we are now a little over $2 million away. That is better, but it is still a serious concern, and it is exactly why I will not wait until taxpayers are told an override is the only option.
In the same speech, Councilor Arriaga also described a Chicopee mother paying out of pocket to get her son services in West Springfield because the programs don't exist here. If families are going without, then recovering wasted dollars is exactly what we should be doing.
### "Our hands are tied because we fund schools at the state minimum."
There are two separate budgets, and this order only deals with one of them.
The School Department budget (known as "net school spending"): This is the minimum amount the state requires Chicopee to spend on education each year. It is controlled by the School Committee. The City Council cannot cut it, and I would never support cutting it. Councilor Brooks said so himself last night: the Council cannot make cuts to the school budget. We agree. This order does not touch it.
School transportation: This is paid by the City, separate from the school budget. State law requires the City to fund schools "in addition to" what it spends on student transportation ([Chapter 70, Section 6](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter70/Section6)), and transportation does not count toward net school spending ([Chapter 70, Section 2](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter70/Section2)). This is the cost that has doubled to $14.65 million, and overseeing it is the Council's job.
When colleagues said "our hands are tied," they were talking about the wrong budget.
I am not the only former School Committee member on the Council. Councilor Brooks, Councilor Pniak-Costello, and Councilor Girouard have all served on the School Committee. Councilor Pniak-Costello mentioned last night that she and Councilor Brooks served together. Councilor Girouard said that when he was on the Committee, it already knew transportation costs were a problem and that the bus contract was "a monopoly" (meaning there is little or no competition to keep prices down). Anyone who has served on that body knows the budgets are separate. That makes it even harder to understand why the debate kept returning to a school budget this order never touches.
### "The $5 million is this year's transportation cost, and it'll be 50 percent higher next year."
$5 million is the savings goal, not the transportation bill. The bill is about $14.65 million, and it has grown by roughly 8 percent a year, not 50 percent.
### "Transportation is the biggest part of the school budget, and if there were savings, they'd have found them."
By the Council's own figures, the school budget is about $106 to $110 million, so transportation is not the largest piece. In the same debate, a colleague who formerly served on the School Committee said our bus contract draws only two or three bidders and called it "a monopoly." A contract with almost no competition is a reason to review it.
### "The order oversteps the Council's authority."
The order is a request. It cites state law (Chapter 71, Section 37) confirming the School Committee's authority over school policy, and it says final decisions stay with the School Committee.
### "Safety isn't in the order."
Councilor Courchesne told me, "You keep saying stuff about safety, which I agree with, but it's not in here. So you're speaking to something that's not even in your order." (About 1:22 in the [meeting video](https://vimeo.com/1237802192))
That is not accurate. Student safety is in the order and in my remarks:
- The order contains a section titled "Transportation and Student Safety." Councilor Brooks read that heading aloud last night, calling it "a bolded subsection, transportation and student safety." (About 0:49 in the meeting video.) - In my opening remarks, I said: "Any change must protect class sizes, educational programming, special-education services, student safety, and the quality of education our children receive." - Later in the debate, I said that I had watched the last School Committee meeting and spoken with a number of teachers who are having serious issues with safety. No student or staff member in our schools should ever have to worry about that. Whether it is $5 million or $1 million, money saved through efficiencies could be used to help improve safety in our schools. (About 1:14 in the meeting video.)
So two councilors were contradicting each other on the same night: one said safety was in the order but not given enough weight, and the other said it wasn't in the order at all. The record is clear. Safety is in the order, and it is one of the reasons I filed it. Finding savings in transportation and buildings is how we pay for the safety improvements our teachers and students need.
I welcome Councilor Courchesne's pending order on school safety and staff training, and I'd be glad to work with him on it. Making our schools safer and spending taxpayer money wisely are the same goal.
### "I could never vote for this," and then they did.
Two of the loudest opponents of this order said they would never support it. Then both voted yes on the same subject that same night.
Councilor Arriaga:
- "I don't think what you've presented is a good idea in any way, shape, or form… I do not support this at all. I will not vote for this." (About 0:56 in the [meeting video](https://vimeo.com/1237802192)) - Later: "I don't think we should vote any which way… we should just stop, say no." (About 1:27) - Then, at about 1:30, she voted YES on a joint meeting of the School Committee and City Council on redistricting.
Councilor McAuliffe:
- He made a motion to deny the order outright. (About 0:56) - "I'm so incredibly uncomfortable with the language that is in this order that there's 0% chance I could vote for it." (About 1:27) - Moments later, he offered his own amendment to send the order to "a joint session of the School Committee and City Council for a conversation and public hearing on redistricting," and voted YES on it. (About 1:28–1:30)
The final version changed the wording of the order, not the subject. It still calls for the School Committee and City Council to work together on redistricting, which is exactly the partnership my order asked for. Councilor McAuliffe even said earlier that if this had been a short order calling for a conversation on redistricting, he "would've voted for that." So the disagreement was never about whether this conversation should happen. It was about how many words the order used.
I'm glad they came around. But residents should know that Councilor Arriaga's "I will not vote for this" turned into "yes" in about 35 minutes, and Councilor McAuliffe's "0% chance" turned into "yes" in about three.
## What efficiency looks like
Children on Fairview Avenue are being bused across the city to Litwin School, about 5.7 miles away, when Bowe School is about a mile from their homes. Sending them to Bowe still gives them a bus, just a shorter ride to a neighborhood school. Taxpayers pay for every extra mile.
I have walked through our schools, and some buildings are not even half full. Consolidation means combining two under-used schools into one building. Combining a half-empty building with another saves an entire building's heating, utilities, maintenance, and overhead, plus the bus routes that serve it. Chicopee has done this before: when the Kirby School closed, the building became housing and went back on the tax rolls.
### What this order will never do
- Cut teachers, paraprofessionals, custodians, or any school staff - Touch net school spending or the School Department's budget - Cut special-education services or transportation students are entitled to - Compromise student or staff safety - Eliminate after-school vouchers or rides to the Boys & Girls Club, YMCA, or other programs - Override the School Committee's legal authority - Lead to a Proposition 2½ override. I will never support one.
## Where we go from here
The Council voted 13–0 for a joint meeting of the School Committee and City Council on redistricting (redrawing which neighborhoods attend which schools). That is the partnership this order asked for, and I welcome it.
The joint meeting, where both bodies meet together in public, is a chance for every parent and taxpayer to be heard. I'll share the date as soon as it is scheduled. Before that meeting, I will be requesting:
- building capacity versus enrollment for every school - how many students are bused outside their nearest school's neighborhood - the cost and mileage of every bus route - the operating cost of each school building
Let's make this decision with real numbers.
## My full remarks to the Council on November 5, 2026
Colleagues, members of the School Committee, school employees, parents, and taxpayers of Chicopee:
I would like to take a moment to briefly clarify what the order consists of, and what it does not.
The City Council's effort through this order is not an attempt to interfere with the operations of the School Department, to draw any attendance boundary policies, or to take away any resources from our students or educators.
This order simply asks the School Committee, Superintendent, and School Department to undertake a comprehensive review of the following: enrollment, school boundaries, building utilization, transportation, and any consolidation opportunities. We ask that these be evaluated, and that any resulting short-term and long-term costs be considered.
The reason is simple: our current transportation trend is not sustainable.
In Fiscal Year 2018, Chicopee spent approximately $7.29 million on school transportation. In the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, we anticipate costs of approximately $14.65 million. That is a 100 percent increase in these expenses alone in less than a decade.
Transportation for our special-education students is designed and built for specific purposes. As these highly functional vehicles have become more complex, their costs have risen. These costs were once approximately $3.74 million; they have now grown to more than $9 million. I want to be very clear about what that number means. We have a population of special-education students who need customized instruction, and their parents rely on us.
Our students deserve every service, accommodation, transportation option, and educational opportunity to which they are entitled. Our responsibility is to determine how we can provide these services in the most efficient and sustainable way.
It is important that everyone knows this is not about balancing the budget on the backs of our teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, custodians, or other school employees. Our educators and staff are the unfailing individuals delivering care with special regard, and they are the mentors who provide dedicated services to our children every day.
What I want to examine is the structure around the people, not the individuals: the transportation, buildings, boundaries, routes, duplication of effort, and overhead.
We must also consider Chicopee's larger financial future, for the greater good. Our ability to raise property taxes is not unlimited, and I want to be proactive before taxpayers are ever told that higher taxes are the only solution.
Be it known: I would never support a Proposition 2½ override (a vote to raise property taxes beyond the legal limit) to solve problems that we have the ability to address through responsible planning, restructuring, and efficiencies. I would rather make responsible decisions today than ask taxpayers for more money tomorrow.
That is why I would like this process to be pursued with a goal of $5 million in sustainable annual savings through these efficiencies. This figure is a goal, not a predetermined conclusion.
If we can responsibly achieve these savings through better transportation routing, improved use of our buildings, appropriate consolidation, and other operational reforms, we can achieve savings of $25 million over five years and $50 million over ten years. This gives Chicopee a greater ability to invest in roads, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, capital projects, and our very important stabilization fund (the City's savings account for emergencies and future needs).
We also need to examine whether some students might be able to attend schools closer to their own neighborhoods. If we have an under-enrolled building, and children are being transported across the city while appropriate capacity exists closer to home, we should study whether there is a better way.
Any change must protect class sizes, educational programming, special-education services, student safety, and the quality of education our children receive.
Legally, our roles are clear. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71, Section 37 places educational policy authority with the School Committee. The Council is not looking to usurp that authority in any way. We are asking for an independent, comprehensive review with the support of the School Committee and School Department, one that offers options, identifies potential savings, establishes timelines, and works collaboratively with us. Final decisions regarding attendance boundaries and implementation remain with the School Committee under Massachusetts law.
And I would like to speak directly to our colleagues in the School Department and on the School Committee:
When you asked the City Council for support, we listened and provided that support. When our schools needed investments and appropriations, we worked with you and provided funding where needed.
Now it is we who are asking you to work with us.
This will be the City Council partnering with the School Committee. This will be Chicopee working together.
Let's protect our students. Let's support and protect our educators. Let's look honestly at the numbers. Let's examine our buildings, transportation system, enrollment, and boundaries.
And let's find efficiencies in the system around our classrooms, so we can protect both the quality of education in Chicopee and the taxpayers who make that education possible.
Councilor Samuel R. Shumsky Ward 6, Chicopee City Council