Bridgewater-Raynham committee approves $98.6 million FY26 operating budget, sets capital and debt assessments

The Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School Committee on Thursday approved a $98,596,693 operating budget for fiscal year 2026, voting 6–2 to send the figure to the towns for their action and setting separate votes on capital and debt assessments that the towns must also consider.

The vote came at an emergency continuation meeting called by Chair Rachel King to meet a June 30 deadline set by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The adopted operating figure excludes capital and debt; the motion on the floor specified the amounts to be apportioned to the member towns based on October 1, 2024, enrollment figures.

The approved operating total was described in the motion as a final budget of $98,596,693, reduced by anticipated revenues of $37,985,022 and an E&D appropriation of $2,000,800, leaving a net assessment to the member towns. The motion listed the apportionments as $22,333,568 due from Raynham and $35,478,103 due from Bridgewater. The motion was made by School Committee member Erika Davenport and seconded by Michael Fitzgibbons; the roll call produced a 6–2 outcome and the motion passed.

Nut graf: The committee moved after weeks of public debate and two failed override votes in the member towns. Superintendent Powers told the committee that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is “concerned that we will not have a budget by June 30,” and said administration is preparing for a 1/12 interim budget if the towns do not ratify a budget in time.

School officials and committee members described tradeoffs in the options they considered. Powers reviewed three scenarios: (1) the towns’ approved budget scenario with a roughly $6.4 million shortfall; (2) the previously discussed post‑election option 1, which reduced that shortfall substantially and preserved 21 classroom positions in the administration’s plan; and (3) a newly introduced post‑election option 2, which mirrors a level‑services budget but still leaves an approximate $800,000 shortfall to be covered by fee increases and reductions to goods and services.

Powers said the administration’s early modeling indicates post‑election option 2 would likely avoid layoffs of currently employed staff but would still require cuts in goods and services and increased fees. “We are obviously preparing for a 1/12 budget,” Powers said, adding that the business office would face substantial operational difficulty under a 1/12 monthly funding arrangement.

Committee members debated the merits and risks of asking the towns for a larger appropriation after voters in both communities rejected override proposals. Member sentiments split along two lines: some members argued that the committee must protect programs and staff where possible, while others said the committee must respect the towns’ votes and “mitigate the damage” by approving a smaller, more fiscally cautious budget.

Committee member (and motion sponsor) Davenport framed the approved option as an attempt to balance those concerns; member Natalie Nathan urged the committee to use the moment to rebuild trust with residents and recommended a ‘‘forensic audit’’ of district finances, saying the administration and committee “need to be stewards of every dollar with care.”

Public comment at the end of the meeting included a statement from high school English teacher Eric Oye, who raised operational and safety concerns if high‑school staffing is sharply reduced: “My concern is when we did winter and we’re in a situation where the flu arrives and it wipes out a number of staff members … what does it look like on the day to day for making sure that our building is accurately secured?” Oye said.

Votes at a glance - Operating budget (post‑election option 1 as read into the record): Motion to approve final FY26 operating budget of $98,596,693 (excluding debt and capital). Mover: Erika Davenport. Seconder: Michael Fitzgibbons. Roll‑call result: 6 yes, 2 no — motion passed. - Capital assessment: Based on October 1, 2024, enrollment, total capital assessed $1,692,500 (Raynham ~$716,362–$716,368; Bridgewater ~$976,138). The measure initially failed, was reconsidered, and on reconsideration the motion passed by roll call (final motion passed; roll‑call tallies in the meeting record). The committee was told that without capital funding, building maintenance and projects would not be able to proceed next year. - Debt costs: Motion to recommend FY26 debt costs totaling $4,081,037.50 (Raynham $515,114.87; Bridgewater $3,565,922.63). Motion carried by roll call; the motion passed.

What the action means next: The committee chair reminded the public that the school committee has voted on a budget and that the figure now goes to each town’s government for action; towns have 45 days to act on the committee’s certification. Superintendent Powers and staff said they will continue planning for multiple scenarios, and the district will begin the year under a 1/12 funding scenario if towns do not ratify the budget in time.

The committee also scheduled follow‑up: a budget update meeting on July 7 in the superintendent’s conference room and the next regular school committee meeting on July 23 at the district auditorium.

Ending: Committee members urged continued community engagement and earlier coordination with town officials for next year’s budget cycle. Members acknowledged the decision was not the ideal budget the district requested but said it provides a working plan so administrators can begin operational planning for the coming school year.