North Middlesex committee debates policy to stop using E&D as regular revenue, sets targets for reserves

The North Middlesex Regional School District School Committee discussed a draft fiscal-reserve policy intended to stop using Excess and Deficiency (E&D) funds as a routine revenue source and to set clearer targets for the district's reserve accounts.

The discussion, led by the committee chair, centered on three proposals in the draft: (1) maintain a minimum E&D balance of about 3% of the general operating budget, (2) move excess funds above that minimum into separate stabilization and OPEB accounts, and (3) adopt a $500,000 unexpended-funds trigger prompting a review of the current year's budget.

Why it matters: Committee members said relying on E&D year-to-year masks operating shortfalls and makes budgeting unpredictable for the district's three member towns. The draft aims to make operating budgets sustainable without recurring transfers from one-time funds and to create clearer, dedicated reserves for capital and retiree liabilities.

Most of the discussion focused on whether the committee should “cold turkey” stop using E&D for operating revenue, how large the separate stabilization account should be, and how to implement the change without causing hardship for a member town.

School Committee member Nancy Haines noted the district’s current planning assumptions and limits. “There’s really only a couple places where there is money planned. One would be in health insurance because we don’t know if we have, you know, staff coming on or off health insurance,” Haines said, describing why some cushion remains in line items even as the committee considers moving to reserves for unanticipated items.

School Committee member Brad Morgan said the district must balance finishing the year “in the black” with ensuring the budget is used for students. “One of the goals of finishing in the black is to either prepay for the upcoming year or to fund back into E and D so that we have an E and D account that’s going to at least match what we’ve spent previously,” Morgan said, while also warning that finishing positive had come at the cost of unfilled positions and postponed purchases.

Multiple members backed a framework modeled on neighboring districts: maintain a 3% E&D minimum, place additional year-end surpluses into stabilization or OPEB accounts, and target a stabilization balance the committee discussed conceptually at about 10% of the general fund (roughly $6 million given the district’s budget scale discussed in the meeting). Committee members estimated 3% would equate to about $2 million of E&D; participants also cited a current projected end-of-year E&D near $2.5 million and roughly $628,000 in other unspent funds identified in recent accounts.

The draft contains an operational trigger: if the district’s end-of-year unexpended balance exceeds $500,000, staff and committee finance reviewers should examine the current year’s budget for reductions or reallocation so that recurring revenue requests from member towns are aligned with demonstrated spending. Committee members debated the wording and whether the review should automatically change town assessments; several members asked to remove any wording that implied an automatic adjustment of town assessments.

Committee members stressed implementation would be complex. Haines and others warned that special-education placements, circuit-breaker reimbursements, staff turnover and midyear hires can create large, hard-to-predict costs in any single year; one member noted recent special-education tuition transfers of about $800,000 in response to placements. The group discussed using multi-year averages for volatility-prone lines (health insurance, turnover-related salary adjustments) to reduce the likelihood of large unspent balances.

The draft also proposed using excess funds to make planned prepayments: one suggestion in the meeting was to place $250,000 annually into a stabilization account and $150,000 into the OPEB account (total $400,000 per year) for several years as a way to smooth the transition away from using E&D for recurring operating costs.

No formal vote was taken on the fiscal-reserve policy. Committee members directed staff and the policy subcommittee to continue refining the draft and to return to the committee with a revised proposal at the subcommittee’s next scheduled meeting in two weeks.

Votes at this meeting (ministerial actions): the committee approved the minutes of Oct. 7, 2025, and later voted to adjourn. The policy draft itself was discussed and not voted on.

Next steps: committee participants asked staff to rework the draft language (removing any automatic-assessment language and clarifying implementation steps), to add clearer targets for each reserve account, to consider phased implementation so towns are not exposed to abrupt assessment changes, and to return the revised policy for further review at the next subcommittee meeting.

—

Sources: meeting transcript of the North Middlesex Regional School District School Committee policy subcommittee discussion on fiscal reserves.