Groton‑Dunstable lays out FY26 budget scenarios; overrides, cuts possible

Groton‑Dunstable Regional School District staff presented three FY26 budget scenarios at a Feb. 26 public hearing that show the superintendent’s level‑services proposal would raise the district’s operating budget to $51,060,000 — a 6.95% increase — and require operational overrides in both Groton and Dunstable.

The level‑services plan would restore two positions (a 1.0 FTE counselor and a 1.0 FTE nurse at the middle school) and reduce one central office administrative assistant. Under that scenario the district would need approximately $827,090 in an override from Groton and about $582,000 from Dunstable to remain within the regional assessment formula and levy limits, presenters said.

Why it matters: the district’s budget growth has outpaced state Chapter 70 funding and local levy limits, staff warned, creating a structural gap that local overrides or program cuts must close. Committee members and audience speakers said the choices — pay for restores through overrides or accept further reductions to staff and programs — will shape classroom services next year.

Staff presentation and scenarios Jeff (staff presenter) summarized the superintendent’s proposed FY26 budget as a “level‑services” plan that adds the nurse and counselor noted above while reducing one administrative assistant. He said the proposal would increase the operating budget from $47,743,000 to $51,060,000 (a roughly $3.3 million increase, or 6.95%). Jeff presented three scenarios: - Scenario 1 (level services): no additional reductions, requires overrides of about $827,090 in Groton and $582,000 in Dunstable. - Scenario 2 (below level services): about $1,300,000 in reductions (an overall 4.22% increase), which would avoid an override in Groton but still require a smaller Dunstable override of roughly $333,000. Projected cuts under this scenario included three central‑office FTEs, the restored nurse and counselor, seven paraprofessionals, and two Unit A teachers (total personnel reductions of about $980,000 plus $300,000 in non‑personnel reductions). - Scenario 3 (significantly below level services): about $2,500,000 in reductions (overall 1.66% increase) that would avoid overrides in both towns. That option was described as requiring roughly $2,000,000 in personnel cuts (including the restored positions, 12 paraprofessionals and eight Unit A teachers) and $500,000 in non‑personnel reductions.

Jeff also described long‑term projections showing local assessments growing faster than Chapter 70 state aid: where state aid once covered a larger share of district funding, that share has declined over 15 years, placing heavier burdens on local property tax levies.

Questions from the public and boards Several residents and town officials questioned specific line items and the feasibility of alternatives. Jake Luan, a member of the Dunstable Advisory Board, asked about the health‑insurance numbers and whether anticipated lower renewals would change the required cuts; district staff said health‑insurance savings are still potential (not yet signed) and would reduce the proposed budget if realized.

Select board and town officials urged outreach to voters and stronger advocacy at the state level. Jason (participant identifying experience on local boards) and Lacey (audience member) urged the committee to pursue overrides while also pursuing structural changes at the state level. Committee members and staff said they hope an operational audit will identify possible local efficiencies.

Operational audit and next steps Sherry (staff member) said the district has engaged a consultant to perform an operational audit in three areas: central office administration, student services (including in‑house versus contracted services and caseloads), and building use (including potential consolidation scenarios such as moving preschool programs or reconfiguring elementary school assignments). Sherry said one consultant on the project participated in a previous 2017 review and is familiar with the district.

Community members asked whether closing or reconfiguring buildings — for example, moving preschool classes or consolidating grades — would be part of the audit; staff said those options are under consideration for analysis but emphasized the audit is informational and no decisions have been made.

Public comment and committee discussion Audience members spoke on the long history of underfunding by the state through Chapter 70 and the consequences of repeated use of nonrecurring funds (federal COVID dollars, E&D, free cash) to balance budgets. Speakers described staffing and service reductions already made and urged both local advocacy and sustained public engagement.

Votes at a glance (motions taken elsewhere in the meeting) - Motion to accept letters to the chairs of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees (motion made and seconded): approved by recorded roll call. - Motion to approve Sections G and J of the district policy manual in form, holding final adoption until the full manual is reviewed: approved by recorded roll call. - Motion to approve the Feb. 12 meeting minutes as presented: approved by recorded roll call.

What’s next Staff said they will continue public forums in schools and that the operational audit is underway; also that final health‑insurance renewal numbers were expected soon and could change the budget projections. Committee members asked staff to continue outreach to town boards and to update numbers before upcoming votes on any override questions.

Reporting note: direct quotations in this article are drawn from the Feb. 26 school committee meeting transcript. Where speakers were identified only by first name or role in the record, the article uses the same identifiers.