Manchester‑Essex committee reviews FY27 tentative budget, cites insurance and salary pressures

The Manchester‑Essex Regional School Committee on Dec. 10 considered its FY27 tentative budget, which the administration presented as a maintenance‑of‑effort plan that would sustain current programs while absorbing significant cost increases. Michelle, the district budget lead, said the document shows an overall increase of 7.39% — about $2.4 million — with most near‑term pressure coming from insurance and salary costs.

Pam, who introduced the budget and explained assumptions, told the committee this is an early look and “we anticipate that this is going to be our high water mark for the year” as presented, noting the figures are estimates that could change if state or federal funding shifts. Michelle laid out the administration’s headline drivers: a projected 5.1% increase in salaries (about $1 million, including COLA, steps and lane changes); a roughly 16.65% rise in insurance and benefits (about $1.1 million), based on a 20% health‑insurance renewal estimate; a 9% increase in the retirement assessment; and targeted increases for curriculum pilots and legal services tied to upcoming contract negotiations.

The presentation identified several specific budget items: a planned 0.3 full‑time‑equivalent increase for a speech and language pathologist; a $26,000 iPad lease to replace aging devices in grades K–2; a $40,000 pilot for science and math curriculum materials; a $25,000 contingency in the legal budget for collective bargaining; and a $90,000 projected increase for transportation tied to a contract that expires June 30, 2027. Special‑education tuition expenses were shown decreasing about 2% due to fewer outplaced students, though contracted services and program needs remain pressures.

To temper the impact, administration staff said the tentative plan uses $600,000 from certified cash reserves (END) and $150,000 of OPEB contributions. With those reserve uses applied, the administration presented an apples‑to‑apples increase figure of about $2.2 million (7.94%).

Committee members and members of the public pressed for detail. A commenter who identified himself as Brendan Zubri questioned an enrollment discrepancy between the district’s figure and the state website; district staff acknowledged a charting error and said the district total should be 1,190 and that they would correct the reporting. Another resident, Ben Butrick of the finance committee, pressed for clarity on insurance strategy; staff said the district conducted a broker RFP and retained USI as broker, and that any plan redesign would need to be coordinated with collective bargaining.

Several members of the public and at least one committee member urged the district to consider structural options to contain long‑term costs. Nina McKinnon (finance committee) said year‑over‑year increases are unsustainable and asked when the committee will take more sweeping programmatic or organizational steps; staff replied that more detailed budget tradeoffs will be the focus of January workshops and that enrollment decline plus rising special‑education needs explain much of the current staffing profile.

Next steps: the administration said the FY27 tentative budget will undergo additional review at January meetings, with a second public hearing scheduled for Feb. 3 and a target for adoption near Feb. 10. The committee did not vote on the budget at the Dec. 10 meeting.