The Chelsea School Committee voted 7–0 with two members absent to approve the superintendent’s recommended general fund budget for 2025–26 totaling $150,891,360.

Members and staff described the vote as approval of the overall spending plan rather than a line-by-line spending order. Committee members said larger line items allow flexibility for reallocations at the department or school level. Several student speakers had urged the committee during public comment to reallocate funds toward expanded sexual-health education, violence-prevention programming, teacher support and better communication with students.

Committee member Sarah (first name given in the record only) asked for clarification about what the committee was approving. Dr. Abeyta, the district superintendent, and Chief Financial/Operations staff explained that the approved total sets overall allocations and that flexibility exists within larger line items. Dr. Abeyta said the security/buildings-and-grounds line item is roughly $1 million and can be adjusted within that category if the district chooses to add security staff. She also said mental-health-and-wellness line items could be used for staff training or to create new health classes, including the comprehensive sexual-health education students requested.

Student speakers during the public-comment period described gaps they see in school services. Andrea Mendez, a Chelsea High School sophomore, said administrators promised to meet with students after a recent student panel but did not follow through; she told the committee the principal called out the following school day and the library space students planned to use was closed. Student speaker Michael Sanabrio criticized spending priorities, saying money had gone to cafeteria renovations and additional security staffing while class sizes and teacher absences have harmed instruction. Other students urged more comprehensive sexual-health education and violence-prevention programming.

Committee members said those student requests can be considered within the approved budget. Member Sarah noted that each school has a site-level budget and a school-site council where families and students can provide input. Member Claudia (last name not provided in the transcript) and others said the district received restricted COVID-era funds earmarked by the city and therefore some investments (for example, the cafeteria renovation) were limited by the terms of those grants and could not be reallocated.

Roll call for the budget showed seven votes in the affirmative and two members absent; the motion carried.

The committee chair closed by thanking students for their testimony and encouraging continued engagement through school-site councils and the remaining budget process at the school level.

Ending: The budget takes effect for the 2025–26 school year as the district moves into implementation planning; committee members and staff said they expect to use the budget’s internal flexibilities to respond to students’ requests and to seek additional targeted funding where needed.