Acton‑Boxborough finance staff told the school committee Tuesday that preliminary multiyear modeling shows a projected FY27 operating total of roughly $124.5 million — about a 6.4% increase over FY26 — if the district maintains current service levels.

The projection flagged two primary drivers: salary increases (cost‑of‑living adjustments, step and lane movement) and rising health‑insurance and retiree‑insurance costs. Finance staff advised using conservative assumptions for modeling because insurance vendors had given ranges; staff said they were carrying an 18% increase for active employee health insurance and a 54% increase for retirees as conservative planning figures.

Why it matters: The projected increases are large relative to recent budgets and would strain the two member towns’ municipal budgets if passed as modeled. Committee members said the projection makes clear that reorganization alone will not close the longer‑term gap and pressed for actionable guidance to the administration about what kind of budget to prepare.

Staff overview
Sherry (identified at the meeting as a finance presenter) prefaced the presentation by saying, “this is not a budget proposal; it’s unrealistic to think that the level of funding here is available to us,” but that the model assumed maintaining current services through FY31. She reported that the FY27 preliminary forecast was approximately $124,500,000 and that the single largest near‑term drivers were salaries (+$3.8 million projected, modeled as a 5.25% increase in the presentation) and health‑insurance and fringe benefit increases. She called attention to the effect of retiree insurance and retirement assessments (Middlesex County Retirement) and to the district’s practice of contributing to OPEB reserves.

Sherry and other staff explained the modeling assumptions: using this year’s salary patterns as a starting COLA assumption for FY27, conservative health‑insurance increases from their broker analysis, and a 4% annual escalator for certain variable lines (utilities, tuition out, transportation). The presentation showed that, under a scenario of 3% annual growth (historical target), the district would be about $20 million short of the modeled spending by 2031.

Committee debate and options
Committee members disagreed about the best direction to give the administration. Some members pressed for a strict “level service” target (prepare a budget that funds current services as‑is), while others said the committee should be explicit about tradeoffs and areas of willingness to accept reductions. Several suggested the budget subcommittee produce two budgets: an “A” budget reflecting desired services and a “B” budget for a lower‑funding scenario that Boxborough may expect in a non‑override year.

Members and staff discussed a range of potential levers for reducing long‑term costs: consolidating facilities through AB Forward; modest increases in average class sizes to gain staffing flexibility; optimization of resource deployment across larger school configurations; and reviewing the district’s program offerings to eliminate redundant or low‑enrollment services. Committee members repeatedly said decisions about class sizes and program changes are consequential and requested data and case studies showing how reorganization and class‑size changes affected outcomes in comparable districts.

Quotes from the meeting included Sherry’s caution that “two line items are accounting for $6,000,000 of increase” and Adam’s comment that the committee must weigh whether to “disrupt a small group or disrupt everybody.” Several members urged the committee to acknowledge community grief about potential changes and to provide clear, actionable guidance to administrators.

What’s next: The budget subcommittee will meet again Nov. 3 to refine budget guidelines and return recommendations to the full committee. Committee members were asked to send written priorities and suggestions to the budget subcommittee in advance so administrators can model specific scenarios.