Groton‑Dunstable superintendent proposes $51.06 million FY26 budget; warns town overrides likely

Groton‑Dunstable Regional School District Superintendent Jeffrey Bruno on Feb. 12 presented a fiscal‑year‑2026 budget book that proposes a $51,060,770 operating budget — a 6.95% increase over FY25 — and said the proposal would require operational overrides in both Groton and Dunstable under current levy limits unless the district accepts reductions.

Bruno called the proposal a “level services budget that also restores 2 positions” and said the restored roles are a full‑time guidance counselor and a full‑time nurse, and that the proposal also reduces one central office administrative assistant. He said the plan increases district staffing from 351.1 FTE to 353.1 FTE to reflect those restorations.

Why it matters: the district now receives a much larger share of its revenue from local town assessments than it did two decades ago; Bruno showed that Groton and Dunstable combined now provide roughly 72% of revenue for the schools, while state aid (Chapter 70) accounts for approximately 24%. That shift makes the towns’ levy limits and willingness to approve overrides the decisive factor in whether the district can fund the proposed level of services.

Key elements of the proposal and assumptions - Total operating budget proposed: $51,060,770 (6.95% over FY25). - Restores two positions cut in FY25: a full‑time middle‑school guidance counselor and a full‑time nurse that will restore district‑wide nursing to 6.9 FTE from 5.9 FTE; guidance rises from 14 to 15 FTE. - Reduces one central office administrative assistant (central office FTE drops by 1.0). - Revenue assumptions rely on Chapter 70 “hold harmless” status and the governor’s proposed $75 per‑pupil increase; Bruno and district staff noted the governor’s figure is an initial proposal and the House and Senate may change it.

Three budget scenarios presented Bruno outlined three funding scenarios that show how much local assessments and personnel would change under differing town levy outcomes: - Scenario 1 (superintendent’s proposed, level services): no program or personnel reductions; would require operational overrides in both towns. District estimates: Groton override about $827,090; Dunstable override about $581,780. Bruno described the required Groton operating assessment rising from $26,412,384 to $28,605,038 (≈8.3%) and Dunstable’s from $7,962,000 to $8,749,022 (≈9.9%). - Scenario 2 (below level services): approximately $1.3 million in reductions, 4.22% operating increase; Groton would remain within its levy limit (no override), Dunstable would still need an override of about $333,611. Personnel reductions described for this scenario include cuts that would remove the two restored positions, ~7 paraprofessional FTE and ~2 Unit A teacher FTE, with roughly $980,000 of the $1.3M coming from personnel and the balance from non‑personnel reductions. - Scenario 3 (severe reductions): roughly $2.5 million in reductions, 1.66% operating increase; no overrides in either town under levy limits, but Bruno said the cuts would be deep and “impact student support and operations district‑wide.” Estimated personnel reductions here include both restored positions, about 12 paraprofessional FTE and about 8 Unit A teacher FTE (total personnel reduction just over $2M), plus roughly $500,000 in non‑personnel cuts.

Fiscal context and district actions Bruno and district finance staff described steps the district is taking to minimize costs: an operational audit and internal efficiency review; consolidation of some central office administrative support; a review of building systems (HVAC/utilities); improved collection for athletics and activities fees; and elimination of one kindergarten bus run (estimated savings ~ $20,000). The presentation also noted the district is using revolving funds for some full‑day kindergarten expenses and has reduced its use of excess and deficiency (E&D) by $100,000 per school committee guidance to avoid funding recurring costs from one‑time reserves.

Questions from committee members and legislative officials Committee members asked how reductions would be distributed across schools, whether paraprofessional cuts could affect IEP supports, and whether reductions would cascade into more out‑of‑district placements. Bruno emphasized that the scenarios are not final and that the district must meet IEP obligations; he warned that deeper cuts would make it “a huge challenge” to support students at the current level.

State lawmakers who attended urged legislative fixes to school funding. State Representative Danillo Sena said Chapter 70 “is not enough for our students” and outlined bills he has filed and cosponsored to increase state shares and to study long‑term formula changes. Representative Scarsdale said local advocates and a coalition of districts are pursuing a three‑part strategy that could include short‑term supplemental funding, stronger FY26 budget advocacy, and a special commission to study the funding formulas.

Next steps and public engagement Bruno noted a schedule of upcoming budget meetings and public forums: Groton budget review on Feb. 22; a Groton select board meeting with state legislators on Feb. 24 (tentative); Groton finance committee Feb. 25; a school committee public hearing March 1 and an open house at the new Florence Roche Elementary with a budget forum March 1; a joint meeting with Groton select board and finance committee March 3 (possible); school committee budget forum March 5; and a budget certification vote scheduled March 12.

The district posted the 139‑page budget book online and set an email for public questions (budgetquestions@gdrsd.org). Bruno closed by reminding the committee that the presented figures are scenario estimates and could shift as state and town numbers change.

Ending note: the committee will not vote on the budget that night; members were asked to review the book and raise questions before the March 12 certification vote.