Newburyport committee warned FY27 level‑service budget requires $42.6M city appropriation as special‑education costs surge

At its Feb. 11 meeting, the Newburyport City School Committee reviewed a level‑service FY27 budget that projects a roughly $42,557,000 city appropriation and significant increases in special‑education costs that are driving an overall 8.7% budget rise under the level‑service scenario.

Ethan Manning, presenting the level‑service framework, said the budget carries current staffing and programming forward while factoring inflation, utilities and settled union contracts. He said the district is planning to use additional "other available funds" — including circuit‑breaker reimbursements, school‑choice revenue and revolving accounts — to reduce the city appropriation requirement.

Manning and central office staff emphasized special education as the primary driver of the increase. Total special‑education spending is projected at $15.8 million for FY27, up about $3.3 million (26.2%) from FY26, with non‑personnel special‑education costs rising about 69% year‑over‑year. Out‑of‑district tuition is projected to climb from about $2.3 million to nearly $5 million, driven by a projected 34 out‑of‑district placements (up from 27).

Staff explained state "circuit breaker" reimbursements cover 75% of eligible costs above a per‑student threshold (currently $53,000) but are paid on a one‑year lag. Because the out‑of‑district expense increase may exceed statutory thresholds, the district plans to file for "extraordinary relief" in March to recapture a portion of eligible costs; reimbursement levels will depend on statewide appropriation and prorating procedures.

The level‑service budget also assumes approximately $1.2 million in school‑choice revenue and continued use of revolving funds (largest: athletics at about $942,250). Federal entitlements under IDEA (~$623,000) and ESSA (~$125,000) are included as conservative estimates. Staffing in the FY27 level‑service budget is estimated at 394.74 full‑time equivalents, a decrease of 1.5 FTE compared with FY26 (396.24 FTE).

Committee members raised concerns about the district’s increasing reliance on school‑choice revenue and revolving funds as structural supports and requested comparative data on user fees and fee structures in neighboring districts. Several members cautioned against shifting costs onto families and emphasized equity — staff noted reduced‑fee mechanisms and said scholarships and fundraising would be considered for targeted programs.

Key budget dates noted in the presentation include a preliminary budget presentation on March 11, a public hearing on April 8, and final school‑committee adoption on April 29. The committee referred detailed school‑choice and fee conversations to the finance subcommittee for earlier review ahead of March budget deadlines.