Leominster committee reviews FY27 budget; staff build in $370,000 Title cut and tie school dollars to improvement plans

Leominster — The Leominster School Committee on April 6 reviewed the district's proposed FY27 budget, which staff presented as a needs‑based request of $116,573,692 and described as shaped by enrollment, the Student Opportunity Act and anticipated federal Title funding reductions.

At the start of the budget presentation, Superintendent (name not specified in the record) told the committee the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education had signaled anticipated reductions in Title grants and district staff “adjusted our main budget to accommodate that change” by including a projected $370,000 decrease. Melanie Michaels, who led the budget briefing, said the district had been advised to assume an 85% “hold harmless” designation from the state and therefore planned for a roughly 15% reduction in Title funds as a conservative estimate; she also noted materials contained a different interim estimate (6%) and explained staff used $370,000 in planning to avoid unanticipated shortfalls.

Michaels summarized the formula‑driven components of state aid under Chapter 70, noting net school spending drivers include per‑pupil rates tied to student categories such as special education, English learners and low‑income status. She said the district’s certified enrollment decreased by about 24 students versus FY26, and that low‑income per‑pupil rates that were raised under the Student Opportunity Act have risen substantially over recent years — from about $5,800 per eligible pupil in FY25 to roughly $7,800 in FY26, with a projected FY27 figure near $8,500.

Key line items the presentation highlighted: wages and salaries make up the largest share of the budget, about $72,967,537; other operating expenses are roughly $36,733,993; and indirect charges are estimated at $6,872,162, yielding the stated FY27 net school spending request. The budget includes funding for 18 currently posted/unfilled positions (carried budget impact of about $766,000) and proposes 10 new positions at an estimated $620,600 to address enrollment shifts and program needs.

Special education tuitions were described as especially variable: staff cited an approximate FY27 tuition total of $9,563,525 and said the district is carrying a $3.7 million circuit‑breaker fund to help absorb spikes in placement costs. Technology spending was presented as approximately $1.1 million (about 1% of the budget) supporting one‑to‑one devices, hotspots and cybersecurity staff; facilities, utilities and maintenance were shown at roughly $4.86 million (4% of the budget), with staff reporting recent utility rate changes and reduced expected solar credits after a harsh winter.

Committee members questioned how the new school‑based, zero‑based budgeting was applied. Michaels said principals were required to tie requests to short‑ and long‑term school improvement goals and provide metrics for evaluating impact; some staffing requests will be funded only after data demonstrate need (for example, one of two requested middle‑school interventionists will be funded initially while outcomes are tracked).

Members also pressed staff on substitute pay and stipends. A committee member cited typical daily substitute rates discussed in the meeting — roughly $120/day for day‑to‑day substitutes and higher rates for long‑term placements — and staff confirmed rates vary by certification and contract language.

Michaels and superintendent staff emphasized the preliminary nature of many figures, noting the House and Senate budget proposals remain subject to change during legislative negotiations. The presentation closed with staff offering to follow up on specific details and supplying committee members with budget book references and supporting documentation.

The committee did not take a final vote on the FY27 budget at the meeting; the presentation closed with questions and a commitment for staff to return with any requested clarifications.