Swansea School Committee holds public hearing on FY26 budget, approves $29.3 million level-service plan

The Swansea School Committee held a public hearing on its proposed fiscal year 2026 budget on March 4 and voted unanimously to present and adopt a $29,321,287 level-service budget after a presentation from district finance and student-services leaders and comments from residents and staff. Superintendent Scott Holcomb opened the hearing and said the district would post a letter from the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees and the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials explaining the statewide funding context.

The finance director, Joanne Rebello, walked the committee and audience through a 200-page budget book and said the proposed FY26 operating request is $29,321,287, a 9.45% increase from FY25. Rebello said that, when other revenue streams (grants, revolving funds, trust accounts and capital funds) are included, the district’s total needs for FY26 rise toward roughly $33.5 million. She told the committee that two major revenue sources have fallen: Chapter 70 state aid and grant funding, together creating a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar gap the district must fill.

The superintendent and Rebello emphasized that the presented budget is a level-service budget — described repeatedly as ‘‘keeping what we have’’ — intended to preserve current staff and programs rather than add recurring positions. They also provided a “level service plus” spreadsheet that showed additional needs that would raise the request to about a 13.6% increase; the committee’s budget subcommittee recommended moving forward with the level-service plan, while sharing the plus list with the town’s Advisory & Finance Committee to show unmet needs.

Student services director Sean Scanlon summarized changes to special-education staffing and facilities over recent years and described work to reduce expensive out-of-district placements. Scanlon said the district added teachers, paraprofessionals, a certified nursing assistant and a school psychometrist in 2023–24 and more staff in 2024–25; he credited those changes with keeping students in-district. Scanlon cited per‑student out‑of‑district tuition ranges from about $69,000 to $134,000 and said keeping a single student in-district for several years can avoid costs that quickly exceed the investment to expand in-district capacity: “This is how you reduce costs in special education. You invest in special education, and the long term plus will far outweigh the short term expenses,” he said.

Public commenters pressed the committee to sustain and expand in‑district services. Nathan Hoover, a Swansea resident and disability‑services professional, praised the district’s transition‑classroom work and urged the committee not to let budget balancing “victimize” vulnerable students. Other playground and maintenance concerns were raised by residents during public comment and in committee discussion.

Rebello and Holcomb listed key budget drivers: salaries (about two‑thirds of the budget), special education (tuition, out‑of‑district placements and contracted services), transportation, health insurance and utilities. They also disclosed several capital priorities: a $5,044,000 building access controls project (with $375,600 in remaining capital funds and $129,000 from the Joseph Case Trust applied), a $200,000 school security assessment, and a $2,000,000 junior high feasibility study funded by the town. The budget document showed requests for additional positions and non‑salary items in the level‑plus scenario, including a curriculum/grant coordinator ($110,000), requests for paraeducators (seven positions totaling $234,850), a BCBA ($75,000), an additional nurse ($66,250), and other one‑time and recurring items, all of which the committee characterized as needs rather than adopted positions.

Committee members and the superintendent repeatedly cautioned that the town’s ability to fund large increases is limited and listed options typically considered to close gaps — user fees, pay‑to‑play charges, field and facility rentals, or Proposition 2½ overrides — while warning that each has trade‑offs. Committee members said the group will present the level‑service budget to the town’s Advisory & Finance Committee and ask the town to consider the level‑plus items as unmet needs.

The committee voted to present and pass the FY26 level-service budget of $29,321,287. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Present/adopt FY26 budget in the amount of $29,321,287 (motion text read by a committee member). Mover/second: not specified in the transcript. Roll‑call/voice: recorded as unanimous (“Aye. Aye. Aye. Unanimous?”). Outcome: approved.

What remains open

Committee members and administrators said the FY26 level‑service budget is intended to prevent immediate staffing reductions but warned that similar shortfalls could recur in FY27 if state and grant funding do not stabilize. The committee asked finance staff to share the level‑plus detail with Advisory & Finance ahead of its meeting so town officials see the district’s additional unmet needs.

Ending

After the vote the committee recessed briefly and moved into an executive session on pending litigation and collective bargaining matters. The committee chair thanked staff for the budget book and for the presentations and encouraged residents to attend Advisory & Finance the following night to follow the town’s review of the budget.