Marblehead administrators outline roughly $900,000 shortfall after offsets, propose staffing reallocations and reserve use

Marblehead school officials told the budget subcommittee on Jan. 5 that a preliminary estimate for fiscal 2027 leaves the district roughly $1.7 million above a level‑funding baseline from the town, and that after proposed offsets the net gap is approximately $878,000–$900,000.

The outline presented to the subcommittee identified multiple offset strategies: tapping revolving accounts (including kindergarten/pre‑K and the international student program Educatius), shifting portions of staff costs to grant or revolving funding, limiting backfills for current vacancies, and identifying operational efficiencies (for example, renegotiating copier contracts and level‑funding classroom supplies and professional development). Administration also described a one‑year circuit breaker reserve (approximately $2.0 million) and prior prepayments of tuition (roughly $800,000–$1,000,000 annually) as buffers against special‑education cost spikes.

Why it matters: the administration said deeper reductions beyond the identified offsets would begin to affect classroom staffing, class sizes and specialized services. Committee members asked for public, aggregate program‑level data that would show how declining enrollment and rising special education needs interact so the subcommittee can justify staffing decisions at town meeting without disclosing individual student information.

Details and tradeoffs Administration described the $1.7 million as a gross estimate of the delta between ‘‘level services’’ and the town appropriation under current staffing and cost assumptions. That figure excludes some revolving account activity; when those offsets and other measures are applied the remaining shortfall discussed during the meeting was about $878,000–$900,000. Officials said the gross and net amounts will be presented in a forthcoming line‑item spreadsheet that lists gross expenditures and each reduction or offset so the subcommittee and finance liaisons can see the math.

Planned offsets and savings under discussion include: - Using revolving funds and nonrecurring revenue where allowable, such as pre‑K/kindergarten revolving accounts and revenue from the Educatius international student program to fund two high‑school positions (noted as contingent on program continuation). - Moving portions of some salaries to grant or revolving lines: examples raised were shifting 0.1 FTE of the assistant business manager to a pre‑K revolving account, moving 0.5 FTE of the assistant special education director to the special education revolving account, and moving 0.5 FTE of the facilities director to a building account—each contingent on fund rules and grant allowances. - Staffing changes tied to vacancies or role realignment: administration identified an unfilled HR assistant position, an ongoing vacancy for a physical therapy assistant at Glover, a math intervention position that was not filled this year, and proposed reductions of roughly 1.75 FTE of EL staffing at Village, among smaller FTE adjustments at the high school. - Programmatic savings such as reclassifying two fellows (previously planned to be funded through IDEA grant) to a lower‑cost arrangement, saving roughly $80,000, and potential summer technology staffing reductions.

User fees and recurring costs Officials raised the need to review user fees for athletics, clubs and preschool programs if contractual salary increases are applied to those programs; the subcommittee noted user‑fee adjustments typically require a vote and should be timed with broader budget decisions.

Special education and fiscal risk Committee members repeatedly pressed administration for aggregate program and staffing data to show how special‑education need and enrollment trends affect cost. Administration described special education as the most volatile cost driver, citing state tuition increases and out‑of‑district obligations. The district maintains a circuit breaker reserve (described in the meeting as about $2 million) and has used annual prepayments for tuition to smooth variability; officials cautioned that drawing down those reserves has long‑term risks and should be avoided if possible.

Calendar and next steps The administration told the subcommittee the executive team aims to finalize a recommended budget around Jan. 26, 2026, and to present the proposed budget to the full school committee on Feb. 5, 2026. The subcommittee and finance liaisons will attempt to meet Jan. 29 or Jan. 30 to review a line‑item packet before the full committee presentation. Administration committed to deliver a clear gross‑to‑net spreadsheet and aggregate program staffing/cost data that avoid student‑level confidentiality issues.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes for Oct. 17, Oct. 30 and Dec. 1, 2025: motion moved and seconded; roll call recorded Melissa and Jen Schaffner in favor; minutes approved (minor formatting/link corrections requested for Oct. 17 and Oct. 30). - Motion to adjourn: moved and seconded; roll call recorded Melissa and Jen Schaffner in favor; meeting adjourned.

What’s next The administration will provide the requested line‑item budget and supporting spreadsheets to the subcommittee and to finance liaisons in late January. The proposed budget will be presented to the full school committee on Feb. 5, 2026. Committee members requested aggregated program and staffing data (non‑identifying) to support any public explanation of staffing and program decisions at town meeting.

Reporting note: this article paraphrases presentations and answers given during a public subcommittee meeting; dollar amounts and FTE figures reported by district staff were described as preliminary and approximate and administration committed to follow up with line‑item spreadsheets and supporting documentation before the full committee presentation.