Brockton committee approves $251.57 million FY2026 net school spending; sets $17 million non‑net request after debate on Schedule 19, transportation

The Brockton School Committee on May 29 approved a $251,570,700 net school spending total for fiscal 2026 and voted to request $17,000,000 in non‑net spending after an extended public discussion about transportation costs and outstanding Schedule 19 charges.

The vote to approve the net school spending figure passed unanimously. The committee later approved the non‑net request by majority vote after members debated whether to seek a higher amount to reflect recent transportation actuals.

The vote matters because the net figure represents the district’s required spending level under state law and the non‑net request funds additional local costs such as transportation. Dr. Taheliani, the superintendent and secretary/clerk to the committee, presented the budget and answered a series of detailed questions from members about program staffing, vendor contracts and line‑item assumptions.

Dr. Taheliani said the budget reflects staffing and program decisions across Brockton Public Schools, noting for example the district’s supports for early college enrollment, professional development contracts (including PowerSchool integration), and a Verizon line covering 92 district cell phones and 38 MiFi devices. She told the committee that Chapter 70 aid has increased roughly 10.1 percent in the budget year and that the district’s required local contribution is up 7.2 percent; overall net school spending increased about 9.6 percent year over year.

Committee members focused most of their discussion on two items: Schedule 19 charges and transportation spending. Several members said Schedule 19 — the city charges the school department pays for certain municipal services — remains unsigned and unclear. Member Judy Sullivan said the lack of a finalized Schedule 19 agreement “should concern this body, and it should concern the public,” and she noted that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has been asked to review year‑end reports related to alleged overcharges.

Vice Chair Mr. Vega pressed the superintendent on transportation. He summarized the district’s recent transportation numbers as presented at the meeting: a projected fiscal‑year transportation cost of $19.3 million; $16.8 million already spent as of the preceding day; $2.4 million in encumbrances; and a resulting gap the committee discussed as roughly $3.3 million. Vega said he was not comfortable approving a $17 million non‑net request because “our actual spending is going to be 19.3. That’s just what it’s going to be,” and he urged the committee to request the higher figure so the district would not return midyear to seek additional funds.

Other members, including Tim Sullivan and others who seconded and supported the motion, argued that the superintendent and her team had taken steps to reduce costs and that approving $17 million reflected “the trajectory we’re moving in.” Tim Sullivan said he wanted to “give Dr. Taheliani a chance to prove” the budget assumptions and that collaboration with city finance staff had produced the $17 million figure currently proposed to the city council.

The committee also discussed contingency and accounting strategies mentioned by members: the potential temporary reclassification of circuit‑breaker funds (special education reimbursement) to cover emergent needs and the risk that such moves could create shortfalls later in the year. Members repeatedly stated that, if the district must return to the city council for more funds, they would publicly document the reasons.

The committee was told the city council’s budget hearings are scheduled beginning June 16, when the schools will be the first department to present. Multiple members noted that officials from DESE were already engaged and that the state’s attention to Schedule 19 adds urgency to finalizing intergovernmental accounting.

Outcome: The committee approved net school spending of $251,570,700 (roll call passed unanimously) and approved a non‑net request of $17,000,000 (roll call passed by majority). Members signaled that they may return to the council for additional non‑net funds if actuals prove higher than the request.

For now, the superintendent’s office will continue implementing cost‑control measures and will provide documentation and follow‑up at future meetings and during the city council process.