North Andover school leaders present three FY26 budget options; committee and public urged to back higher ask

Interim Superintendent Pam Lathrop presented three proposed FY26 budgets to the North Andover School Committee on Jan. 21, outlining a $71,784,091 “level service” budget, a $67,600,000 alternative budget and a $64,858,914 guidance budget recommended by the town manager and select board.

Why it matters: the level-service budget would fully fund contractual salary steps, special-education tuition and transportation reserves and programs now paid with expired federal grants; the guidance budget would require deep cuts and temporary closure of Kittredge Elementary. The committee and many public commenters urged the town to seek additional local revenue or use available town tax capacity to avoid severe program and staff reductions.

Lede facts and numbers: Lathrop said “the vast majority of our school's general fund is spent on salaries, approximately 83%.” She told the committee that leveling the district’s budget to account for recent spending and contractual obligations produced a $71.8 million level-service figure and created a projected deficit of $6,925,178 relative to current guidance.

Nut graf — what the options do: Lathrop described the consequences of each option. The guidance budget would reduce the district by roughly $6.9 million and — as presented — include the temporary closure of Kittredge Elementary, loss of 23 teacher positions and 13 teaching assistants in PreK–5, reductions in library positions for grades 6–12, reductions to athletics and Scarlet Knights Academy, elimination of a special-education tuition and transportation reserve, and cuts to professional development and per-pupil allocations.

What the alternative and level-service budgets would change: the alternative budget (about $4.18 million in reductions from level-service) reduces but does not eliminate many student-facing positions: it reduces an estimated 16 elementary teachers (rather than 23), 8.5 middle-school teachers (rather than 10.5) and 10 high-school teachers (rather than 12), among other changes. The level-service budget would maintain current staffing and reserves but requires the largest increase in local funding.

Committee discussion and fiscal context: Committee member Michael Moskovich (first reference uses full name and role: School Committee member Michael Moskovich) reviewed local revenue options and the impact of Proposition 2½ on municipal budgets, saying, “I think the odds are now about 50 or 60%” that the town can find additional capacity to increase support without a ballot-box override by coordinating the select board, finance committee and town manager and pursuing available tax capacity and other revenues.

Lathrop summarized why the level-service figure is much larger than recent budgets: one-time federal ESSER grants previously funded more than $1 million in salaries that have expired; transportation, special-education tuition and foster/homeless transportation costs have increased materially; and contractual step and COLA costs are built into the level-service scenario.

Public response and risk concerns: more than two dozen residents, teachers and school staff spoke at the public-comment portion and during the budget hearing. Sargent Elementary counselor Jillian Connolly (Sargent Elementary School) asked the committee to appoint Pam Lathrop to the permanent superintendent role and said, “Please appoint Miss Lathrop to the permanent position of superintendent.” Several teachers and parents warned that the guidance budget’s cuts would raise class sizes, reduce counseling and library services, and increase the risk of costly out-of-district special-education placements.

Special-education and reserves: Lathrop said the guidance budget would eliminate the special-education tuition and transportation reserve; she warned that the district’s historical reliance on nonrecurring grants had masked structural spending pressures. On the alternative budget she said IEP commitments and 504 plans would continue to be met, but some staffing realignments would be required.

Next steps and town process: Moskovich said practical approval will rely on working with the select board and finance committee and then getting a vote at town meeting; he and other committee members cautioned that town-meeting votes differ politically from override referendum votes. The committee scheduled a public hearing on the FY26 budget for Jan. 30 and encouraged community outreach and turnout for any town-meeting vote.

Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded Jan. 21): The committee took two earlier, procedural votes during the meeting: approval of an ABECC revolving-account line-item transfer (roll call: Michael Hicks, yes; Michael Moskovich, yes; Joseph Brown, yes; Kelly Cormier, yes — outcome: approved) and acceptance of the FY25–26 high school Program of Studies as presented (same roll-call outcomes).

Ending — what to watch for: the school committee will return Jan. 30 for a public hearing on the FY26 budget and expects to meet town boards in the coming weeks to attempt to increase the town’s recommended allocation before town meeting. Committee members and the administration urged residents to review materials online and prepare for town-meeting deliberations if the committee advances an alternative request above the town-manager guidance.