Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Attleborough schools present $53.4 million needs-based budget; town manager proposes $51.3 million
Summary
District staff presented a $53.4 million needs-based budget, while the town manager’s budget is $51.3 million. School leaders said the gap would force choices among staffing, athletics and class-size relief; no vote was taken at the meeting because final revenue numbers remain uncertain.
North Attleborough Public Schools staff presented a needs-based budget totaling $53,400,000, saying the town manager’s budget of $51,300,000 is about $2.1 million less than the district requested.
The difference would require trade-offs, Speaker 1, a school district staff member, said. “We had, again, developed a needs based budget because we were asked to. And that needs based budget totaled 53,400,000.0, but the town manager did present his budget to town council a couple of weeks ago. And his budget, number is right here, 51,300,000.0, which is over $2,000,000 less than what we had asked for,” Speaker 1 said.
Why it matters: the district said the needs-based total would fund existing staff salaries, restore an operating budget for athletics and allow the hiring of three teachers intended to address high class sizes. Speaker 1 summarized the constrained choices: “In summary, we could fund salaries for existing personnel. We could finally take care of our athletics budget. We could address some high class sizes, but we can't do anything else.”
Staff walked committee members through a tiered list of priorities beginning from last year’s baseline operating budget. Speaker 1 said the district’s starting point was last year’s budget of about $49,000,000 and added that salary inflation for existing personnel accounts for roughly $2,100,000 of the increase.
To close some of the gap, staff proposed adding $200,000 in additional revenue and noted user fees as a partial offset to athletics costs. When asked whether the athletics figure was before or after user fees, Speaker 2 asked, “The fund athletics hundred thousand, is that before or after user fees may or may not be assessed?” Speaker 1 responded, “That's with user fees. That's where the increase in the future.”
The meeting included discussion of an open posting for a community school assistant principal, with one committee member proposing that the hire serve part time at a second building to stretch payroll dollars. Speaker 3 described the idea as “super creative” but added it was “obviously not ideal,” noting other districts use such shared roles. Speaker 3 said: “If that's where we are and we're up — we're up against the wall, you know, we have to, you know, desperate times call for desperate measures.”
State funding was raised as a potential offset. Speaker 3 referenced Chapter 70 funds, saying, “Adam Scanlon has been incredibly clear with anyone who will listen and even those who don't wanna listen that the chapter 70 fund should be coming to the schools.”
No formal vote on the budget was taken at the meeting. Speaker 4 asked that the committee postpone voting because the district still lacks a firm revenue number: “So I had asked Dr. Antonucci that we not take a vote tonight, because we still don't have a firm number.”
The discussion centered on balancing personnel costs, athletics, transportation and class-size relief against an uncertain revenue picture. Committee members asked staff to continue refining numbers and return with clearer revenue projections before any formal vote.
