Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Andover officials outline $107.5M preliminary FY26 budget; identify roughly $1.8M shortfall
Summary
Superintendent presented a high-level FY26 budget of $107,504,760 and said the district is facing an approximately $1.8 million deficit driven by higher salary and transportation contract increases; officials outlined a January–March process to present options and seek committee direction.
Superintendent Dr. Parv presented a preliminary FY26 budget on Dec. 12, telling the Andover School Committee the district estimates a $107,504,760 total budget for fiscal 2026 and faces an approximate $1.8 million deficit that the administration will ask the committee to address in the coming months.
The presentation framed the meeting as information-only, with Dr. Parv saying the goal was to "ground us all in the same knowledge" before the committee receives more detailed options in January and February. She listed the main drivers of the shortfall as higher-than-anticipated wage and contract increases and transportation contract cost growth.
Why it matters: committee members and the administration said this is not a one-year problem. The Budget Advisory Council urged clearer public messaging that the district faces a multi-year structural gap, and officials asked the committee to prioritize trade-offs that will shape the detailed budget proposals presented in January.
Administration figures and drivers: administrators said collective-bargaining settlements and contract assumptions increase salary-related costs beyond the town's standard 3.75% level-service increase. The presentation identified roughly $4.1 million in additional salary costs driven by contractual wage increases (teacher, IA and other groups), leaving a gap once level-service revenue is set. Transportation contracts were highlighted as another major driver — special-education and activity transport services rose substantially in recent bids, with the administration citing a near‑15% increase for some contracted services in the forecast year.
Next steps and process: Dr. Parv outlined the timeline: the committee will receive department-level needs and a set of budget options in January, will engage in reduction-brainstorming and trade-off discussions in February and March, and must finalize recommendations ahead of town meeting in April. She described January as the month when the committee will be asked to select a directional option; more precise personnel and program impacts will follow in subsequent meetings.
Committee reaction: members pressed for more clarity on options and public messaging. One member said redistricting work should be assessed for possible cost savings in transportation over the long term; administration said it has asked the redistricting consultant to prioritize scenarios that examine efficiencies. The Budget Advisory Council also recommended explicitly separating special-education costs in public materials so the community better understands that some expenses are largely mandatory and less within local control.
What is not yet decided: the administration emphasized that allocations between personnel and non-salary items remain to be determined. The superintendent said some initiatives (for example, adding parity for literacy coaches across elementary schools) are priorities but any staffing changes will be considered against attrition and repurposing options; she said additions would not necessarily assume new FTEs without repurposing.
The committee is scheduled to receive more detailed budget options in January and to deliberate on trade-offs in the lead-up to the district's submission in February and April town meeting procedures.
