Triton school committee opens public hearing, directs administration to prepare budget with $2.45 million increase and $432,651 in possible reductions

The Triton Regional School District School Committee on March 5 opened a public hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget and directed administration to prepare a final spending plan that reflects a $2.45 million increase over FY25 while identifying $432,651 in undesignated reductions to be applied if local override votes fail.

The guidance follows nine prior budget meetings and three sessions with the district’s three member towns, Chair Linda Lacoski said at the start of the hearing. The committee plans to provide final guidance in time for a formal budget vote on March 12; the budget then must be approved by at least two of the three member towns at their town meetings and, where required, at the ballot box on May 13 to raise taxes under Proposition 2½.

Superintendent Brian Perry reviewed changes since the tentative budget, saying personnel and benefits drive most of the increase: “We are a human services organization...80 to 85% of our costs coming from employee costs, personnel, benefits and such,” he said. Perry told the committee the revised package reduces the earlier draft increase (about $3.7 million) to $2.45 million by trimming several items and relying on expected state offsets.

Perry identified major cost drivers cited in the hearing: salary step and cost-of-living increases across four bargaining units (about $1.18 million), health-insurance premium increases (about 16.12% for the HMO and 10.23% for dental), and higher transportation and facilities costs. He also reported a $308,000 reduction in out‑of‑district tuition compared with the tentative budget and a $50,000 planned expenditure to continue the district’s fourth-year Chromebook replacement cycle for certain grades.

The tentative reductions and program changes the administration presented include: cutting the wellness coordinator position; reducing five high‑school sections (described as currently unfilled); combining some middle/high school programs for one year to save about $197,000; and not restoring two bus runs (a potential $155,000 savings) unless additional revenue materializes. Perry said some positions previously paid from a grant — including an EL IA and a multilingual learning position in Salisbury — must be absorbed into the general fund after grant changes.

Public commenters — primarily district teachers, specialists and parents — urged committee members to minimize cuts to class sizes, arts, library and other specialist programming. David Williams, a fourth‑grade teacher at Newbury Elementary School, said smaller classes help teachers form the individual connections needed for students’ academic and social growth: “Smaller class sizes greatly benefit our students and improve the quality of their education,” he told the committee. Several specialists and special‑education staff said larger classes and program consolidations would increase caseloads and reduce services, with one speaker noting the district already struggles to meet students’ social‑emotional needs.

Parent and school‑council leaders urged town voters to approve overrides if necessary. “Please vote in favor” of overrides, Erica Champagne, a Salisbury resident and Triton High School Council co‑chair, told the committee, asking town leaders and legislative representatives to press for state funding increases.

State legislators who attended described the limits of the governor’s current budget proposal for Triton and the broader structural funding issues affecting smaller and regional districts. Senator Tarr said the governor’s proposal would add roughly $157,000 to Triton’s Chapter 70 aid but urged structural changes to the foundation budget formula: “We need to reconstitute the Foundation Budget Review Commission,” he said, arguing the formula’s design leaves many small and regional districts with insufficient state support. Representatives at the hearing highlighted pending bills that would increase circuit‑breaker reimbursement, raise regional transportation reimbursement, and address ability‑to‑pay components of Chapter 70.

The committee paused for a short recess after the legislators’ remarks, then returned to finalize guidance to the administration. Board members agreed the revised $2.45 million figure was the best current estimate of what the towns could reasonably support; they directed Superintendent Perry to “massage” the draft so the final warrant motion presented at the March 12 meeting reflects that total and the $432,651 of undesignated reductions if override votes fail.

The committee opened and closed the public hearing by motion and roll‑call vote. The budget still requires a formal committee vote March 12 and subsequent town approval; if fewer than two towns approve the district budget, the committee will need to rework and re-submit a budget until two towns pass it. If no budget is approved before July 1, the state could impose a 1/12 funding plan for the district.

Next steps: the school committee will vote the final FY26 budget at its March 12 meeting; towns will consider the budget amount and potential overrides at their town meetings and, for overrides, on the May 13 ballot.