Board reviews draft 2025–26 budget; administrators cite 2.34% rollover increase and pilot-payment shift to tax levy

District business officials presented a draft rollover budget for the 2025–26 school year that keeps current programs and shows a 2.34 percent increase in overall spending compared with the current year.

Why it matters: the presentation gave the board and public a baseline for the coming budget season and flagged an important timing issue: a large taxpayer’s payment that previously appeared as a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) could shift onto the district’s tax levy in 2025–26. District staff said that shift would raise the tax-levy number without necessarily increasing taxpayers’ share of the total tax burden; the distribution across towns and final resident bills depends on local assessors and equalization ratios and may not be known until late in the summer.

Emerson Segarra, director of school business and finance, presented revenue and expense drivers and described a “modified rollover” approach after a line-by-line zero-based review. Segarra said salaries in the proposed budget rise roughly 1.77 percent and that the overall rollover figure — reflecting current programs and contractual obligations — is 2.34 percent. He listed several cost pressures: increases in retirement contributions (Segarra cited teacher retirement up about 10 percent and ERS up about 16.5 percent), health-care costs, and BOCES and utilities inflation. He also said transportation costs were up about 2.5 percent on negotiated terms.

Superintendent Michael Bridal (identified in the meeting as the superintendent) and Segarra explained the PILOT situation: the district currently counts a large taxpayer’s payment as a PILOT but expects that payment to appear on the tax levy for 2025–26. Segarra and board members discussed the technical effect: the tax-levy figure would increase (Segarra and other board members described an approximate $1.4 million to $1.5 million contribution shifting into the levy, which one speaker noted would appear as a roughly 4.5 percent increase in the levy), but that figure alone does not indicate how much individual taxpayers will pay because apportionment among the three towns, equalization rates and any assessment challenges could change the distribution.

Board members pressed for more detail on several points. A member asked for an itemized breakdown of the “other” expense category that accounts for 8.23 percent of the presented change; Segarra and staff agreed to return a line-item breakdown and dollar values at the next workshop. Segarra said much of the budget’s reduction from a higher preliminary figure resulted from a zero-based approach that removed some items previously in the 2024–25 budget; the result is a lower year-over-year increase than would have appeared if all 2024–25 items were carried forward without review.

Key timeline items presented by business staff: an April 3 budget workshop that will combine revenue and expenditure elements; an April 24 board packet with a full budget proposal and suggested adjustments; nominations/petition deadline for board seats on April 21 by 5 p.m.; and the district’s budget vote scheduled for May 20 (the presentation said absentee ballots’ receipt deadline is 5 p.m. on the day of the vote).

Staff cautioned the board that several external variables remain unsettled: the state budget (SEG aid levels), final tax assessments for the large property moving off PILOT status and ongoing contract negotiations with the Marlborough Faculty Association. Board members and staff agreed to continue refining figures and promised a more detailed breakdown of the “other” category at the next meeting.

No final budget resolution was adopted at the meeting; staff presented a working “rollover” baseline for future board decisions.