Triton school committee sets FY26 tentative-budget 'high watermark' at 2.625% increase

The Triton Regional School Committee on Feb. 6 agreed to set a tentative FY26 “high watermark” for the district budget that would limit assessed increases to member towns to about 2.625%, and directed administration to draft a tentative budget to meet that target.

Committee Chair Linda Lukoski opened the remote meeting and turned budget discussion over to Superintendent Brian Forgett, who presented a condensed summary of priorities and discretionary items that produce a range of possible budget increases. Forgett said the condensed worksheet was intended “to give you a sense of the scope” and emphasized that “this is not a proposal. This is not a recommendation.”

The committee adopted the 2.625% figure as the top-line target after discussion about what member towns could afford. Lukoski confirmed the figure, saying, “2.62525 is the number.” The committee instructed the superintendent and finance staff to prepare a tentative budget reflecting that target for the Feb. 12 meeting and to present a detailed list of proposed reductions at the Feb. 26 deliberations and the Feb. 20 follow-up referenced in the meeting timeline.

Why it matters: the chosen “high watermark” sets the maximum assessment the district will present to Newbury, Salisbury and Rowley when the tentative budget is posted; the final assessments will depend on collective bargaining results, health-insurance renewals and any additional state aid.

Key numbers and priorities discussed - A fully expanded set of the items the administration reviewed would drive the district’s bottom line to roughly $3.7–3.8 million in additional spending, Forgett said; the condensed worksheet in the packet showed a range of scenarios rather than a recommended package. (Forgett: “It puts Newbury coming up on… $950,000,” and “Salisbury at $1,200,000. Rowley at over $1,400,000,” as examples when the larger package is modeled.) - Discretionary or “updated priority” items highlighted in the materials included: reassigning funding for an elementary teacher (+$85,000 moved to Newbury from Salisbury), increased per-school supply budgets (a few thousand dollars per school), a $75,000 contribution to OPEB as the third year of the capital plan, a $50,000 line for the fourth year of the Chromebook-refresh plan and market corrections/assumed 3% for non-union employees (roughly $139,111 in the packet). Forgett described the teacher funding move as “not a new addition” but a reallocation tied to class-size patterns. - Special-education staffing changes outlined included an adjustment to the district plan for Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) coverage and an estimated $78,000 differential to convert roles toward a full BCBA to better cover programs at Pine Grove, Newbury and Salisbury.

Committee discussion and rationale Committee members repeatedly emphasized two priorities they did not want removed: continuing OPEB funding to support the district’s bond rating and preserving the Chromebook-refresh in its final year. Member Nerissa Wallen said she “hate[s] going into budget season feeling like we’re in mourning already” and urged preserving OPEB and the Chromebook plan even while acknowledging difficult trade-offs. Several members stressed that deep cuts would likely require staff or program reductions and that two of the three member towns must be able to pass assessments for the budget to stand.

Multiple committee members summarized informal indications from town representatives. Forgett said he had not received a single clear, fixed number from all towns but summarized what he had heard: Rowley “needs an override just to generally operate,” Salisbury could find something in between but not a $1 million-plus assessment increase, and Newbury’s capacity was limited. Committee members used those town-level signals to justify choosing a conservative top-line target rather than a larger hypothetical increase.

Process directions and next steps The committee asked the administration to use the 2.625% figure as the tentative budget target. Forgett said next week’s packet would include the full multi-page tentative budget but that many specific reductions would remain “to be determined” while the administration completes PEC negotiations and waits for insurance renewal figures. The committee asked that where reductions are likely to affect staff, the administration identify them as part of the Feb. 26 deliberations and the Feb. 20 follow-up mentioned in the meeting timeline.

Other procedural notes Chair Lukoski proposed moving the public hearing and final budget dates to accommodate additional deliberations: tentative budget discussion Feb. 12, no meeting Feb. 19 (vacation week), budget deliberations Feb. 26, public hearing March 5 and final budget vote March 12. The committee did not take a separate roll-call vote to change those dates during the budget discussion; the schedule was presented as the staff-recommended timeline.

Adjournment The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn; the committee approved the motion by roll-call vote with all members present voting yes.

Ending note Committee members and district staff acknowledged the schedule is tight and that the tentative budget will include some undetermined reductions while negotiations and insurance renewals conclude. The administration will return next week with a packaged tentative budget built to the 2.625% target and a list of reductions to be further refined in February.