School committee approves FY27 budget assessments after heated debate over non‑mandated busing

The Whitman‑Hanson Regional School Committee voted March 11 to set the district’s fiscal‑year‑2027 budget and to forward operating, debt and non‑mandated transportation assessments to the two member towns after an extended discussion over how to allocate non‑mandated busing costs.

Superintendent Dr. Marcus presented a proposed FY27 operating budget of $66,758,178 and told the committee, “This is the budget that we’re comfortable with. This is as far as I’m willing to go. I’m not getting rid of anything else.” The presentation followed a fuller fiscal update from Business Director Matt Wells, who detailed the district’s year‑to‑date finances and said leadership is working to “protect that END” — the district’s reserve — which they anticipate certifying at about $600,000.

The bulk of the public debate focused on how to treat non‑mandated busing (transportation the district is not legally required to provide). Members and outside guests disagreed over whether that line should be folded into the statutory assessment (which is allocated by the regional agreement and state formulas) or kept separate and presented as a non‑mandated cost to be approved by each town.

Scott Sean Kaine, representing Whitman select‑board interests, recommended following the original 1992 regional agreement language and noted that “[i]f the regional school district decides not to provide non‑mandated busing, an article will be presented to the selectmen of each town for approval by the voters,” language read into the record during the meeting.

Committee members debated assessment methods. Mr. Wells explained the mechanics used in the district’s calculations: after backing out revenues, the district applies DESE (state) minimum‑contribution calculations and then allocates the remainder. For non‑mandated transportation, the district’s mileage method produced an allocation of roughly 80% Whitman / 20% Hanson; if the committee used a ridership (per‑rider) method instead, Wells said, that would shift more of the non‑mandated cost back onto the towns — roughly an additional $182,000 to Whitman and $53,000 to Hanson under his example.

Several members pressed for more time to reconcile the policy and fairness concerns before finalizing the assessment. Mr. Marks urged committee work to treat the district as a single regional system and remove “town‑by‑town” incentives that he said undermined regional efficiencies. Others, including Miss Stafford, argued that keeping the non‑mandated piece separate preserves town control by allowing voters to approve that incremental expense at town meeting.

After discussion the committee moved the package to a roll‑call vote. The combined set of motions — adopting the FY27 budget, setting operating assessments, separate non‑mandated transportation assessments, and debt assessments — passed on the recorded vote: Boyce (yes), Niff (yes), Stafford (yes), Degraio (yes), Rafy (no), Trestle (yes), Marks (yes), Hill (abstain), McCullum (yes), Blackman (yes). The tally produced eight votes in favor, one opposed and one abstention.

Votes at a glance - FY27 operating budget: adopted at $66,758,178 (motion passed). - FY27 operating assessment: Hansen $16,551,342.52; Whitman $20,883,763.85 (motions passed). - FY27 non‑mandated transportation assessment: Hansen $54,330; Whitman $235,439.96 (motions passed). - FY27 debt assessment: Hansen $226,385.38; Whitman $352,174.36 (motions passed).

Why it matters The assessment vote determines the dollar amount the member towns will be asked to carry for next fiscal year’s school operations, transportation and debt service. The meeting exposed enduring tensions in regional governance: small‑town fairness, the technical choice of mileage vs. ridership formulas, and how regional benefits (for example, scheduling or “whole‑system” routing that could lower costs) are distributed between municipalities.

What’s next Committee members asked the regional agreement subcommittee and business office to clarify the transportation calculation and to provide clearer written comparisons of assessment methods before towns finalize their budgets. The assessments will be forwarded to the two towns as part of their town budget processes; the legal deadline referenced in the meeting for formal votes on assessments was March 20.