North Middlesex committee adopts 2.25% budget; plan assumes staff consolidation and possible building consolidation as option

The North Middlesex Regional School Committee on Feb. 26 adopted an operational budget of $58,926,446 for fiscal year 2026, with a transportation budget of $5,029,162 and debt service of $3,615,892. The committee also authorized use of $1,872,226 from the district's excess and deficiency account to offset the operational total. The package passed after a roll-call vote and will be transmitted to the three member towns for their March 10 budget meetings.

Why it matters: The administration told the committee that the two key ways to get the budget down from a 5.48% level-services increase were (1) staff reductions and (2) consolidating school buildings. The two-building and one-building consolidation scenarios both reduce near-term expenses but would raise class sizes, increase student travel time and, in some cases, risk MSBA grant clawback. The committee voted to send a budget level that assumes some consolidation savings while also authorizing the superintendent to research alternatives and negotiate potential personnel options.

Superintendent Brad Morgan and district staff presented three main budget paths: a 3.16% increase that included closing one elementary school and eliminating roughly 12 full-time positions districtwide; a 2.55% option with fewer reductions (including about six FTEs at the middle school and $40,000 in other reductions); and a 0% increase option that would require closing two buildings and cutting about 15 additional FTEs. Morgan told the committee the 3.16% model included roughly $380,000 in building operations savings tied to closing Ashby Elementary plus additional staffing-consolidation savings that together yield larger total savings once positions are adjusted.

"I'm not in favor of closing any building," Morgan said, but he told members the district has "reached a point" where state assistance is needed and that the different scenarios carry trade-offs for class size, course offerings and student transportation.

Public comments focused heavily on Ashby Elementary. Several parents and staff described Ashby as a small, community-centered school and warned that its closure would disrupt students and families. Patrick Lyden, an Ashby parent, asked why the district had not completed a "comprehensive closing study" required by the district's policy on retirement of facilities (Section F). Lyden said he had searched for such a study and could not find one. "Why has a comprehensive closing study not been completed for either AES, Spalding, or Squannacook?" he asked.

Tara Smith, a parent from Ashby, said the district has been running repeated shortfalls and questioned whether closing a well-valued school would achieve meaningful savings. "You've been short $5,000,000 last year, and this is gonna save a possible $380,000 to close this school," she said, adding she had "no confidence" the move would avoid harm to students.

Shelly Jones, an Ashby parent with middle-school children, said bus rides already run long and warned that closing Ashby would extend commutes, disrupt extracurricular participation and prompt families to leave the district. "We are left struggling to get our children where they need to be on time," she said.

Ashby Elementary staff submitted a statement read at the meeting describing the school's history, partnerships with local colleges and recent academic gains; the statement said closing Ashby would "create elevated stress and anxiety in our students" and harm equity of access across the district.

The committee also heard from Rochelle of CPAC (the Special Education Parents Advisory Council), who asked the district to consider additional screening checks for new hires (including DCF central registry checks) and said CPAC can help with transition events for students with special needs during any reassignments.

On the question of MSBA grant repayment, the administration told members the Massachusetts School Building Authority had issued a letter indicating a possible repayment of just over $270,000 if a school funded by MSBA were removed from use. Morgan said he had spoken to an MSBA official who said the authority would require a written district decision before finalizing the method and timing of any repayment. "It's not clear" exactly how MSBA would collect, Morgan said; the district had been quoted "just over $270,000," but the MSBA representative said the amount and collection method could be reconsidered after formal notice.

Committee discussion and decisions

- The school committee voted unanimously to authorize Superintendent Brad Morgan to open discussions with the district's health-insurance provider and unions about a possible health-insurance opt-out arrangement (a nonbinding authorization to explore that option).

- The committee likewise voted unanimously to authorize the superintendent to research and negotiate possible early-retirement incentives for eligible staff.

- The committee voted unanimously to authorize the superintendent to research what level of district activity would qualify a building as "in use" (that is, steps the district could take to keep a building on the district's books, such as using space for central-office functions or a limited program, to avoid handing the property back to a town and possibly triggering MSBA repayment obligations).

- The committee approved a field-trip request: 12 student council members will attend the Massachusetts Association of Student Councils conference on Cape Cod, March 3'5; the motion included an administrative signature verification and passed in a recorded roll call.

Votes at a glance (motions recorded at the meeting):

- Motion: Approve in-state student council trip to MASC, March 3'5 (with chair verification of an additional administrator signature). Outcome: approved (mover recorded as Randy Smoshin; seconded by Patrick McPhillips). Roll-call at time of voting showed unanimous approval.

- Motion: Authorize superintendent to negotiate/explore a health-insurance opt-out policy. Outcome: approved (unanimous roll call).

- Motion: Authorize superintendent to research/offer early-retirement incentives and to open related negotiations. Outcome: approved (unanimous roll call).

- Motion: Authorize superintendent to research what constitutes district use of facilities for purposes of keeping them on the district's books (options to reduce operational costs while preserving ownership). Outcome: approved (unanimous roll call).

- Motion: Adopt FY2026 budget using operational $58,926,446; transportation $5,029,162; debt $3,615,892; and E&D offset $1,872,226. Outcome: passed by the committee in a roll-call vote; the budget will be sent to the three member towns for their March 10 meetings.

What the budget means for students and towns

The administration warned members that most further cuts would come from staff reductions or program eliminations. Under the more severe options presented, elementary class sections could rise into the 30s in places and some middle-school teams could be reorganized or reduced.

Morgan and staff urged caution about a 0% budget, saying it would require school closures and deeper staffing cuts that would reduce programming and increase transportation times significantly. "Any time you go up over 30, you're creating a problem in your classrooms," Morgan said of class-size projections.

Next steps and outlook

The committee sent the approved budget figure to town officials for posting and to prepare warrant articles for the March 10 town meetings. Committee members also asked the administration to return to the committee with (1) additional, specific cost estimates if the district pursues health-insurance opt-out or early-retirement options; (2) an MSBA clarification about the potential repayment amount and timing; and (3) a plan for limited building uses that could preserve district ownership while minimizing utility costs if the committee seeks to delay or avoid a permanent closure.

The committee chairs and administration also said they will continue outreach to state officials to seek longer-term relief for chapter-70 and other state funding shortfalls that members described as a structural driver of the budget crisis.

Ending: The committee members said they would hold additional meetings to refine details and to prepare presentations for the towns on March 10; the administration was asked to return with clarified cost estimates and any legal constraints on short-term uses of buildings that could affect the MSBA obligations.