State Requires Regional School District to Redo FY2026 Budget

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Pelham Regional School Committee, March 31, 2025

This meeting was held in a hybrid format and was recorded.

When the Amherst Town Council rejected the assessment method for apportioning school costs among the four towns in the regional school district, it put the district in a situation where there was no budget for the coming fiscal year. If an assessment method is to be used that differs from the regional agreement, then all four participating towns must agree to it. Because the Regional School Committee (RSC) was required to have passed a budget by March 31, an additional meeting was held to approve a revised budget for the coming year. 

The budget passed by a 7–2 vote at the March 31 meeting ($37 million– $812,000 short of level funding) was the same total amount as the one the committee had previously approved. However, by applying the assessment method specified in the regional agreement, the assessments for each town changed. The regional agreement states that the region should use the state’s required (statutory) method of assessment, adjusting for a five-year rolling average of enrollment for each town. Employing this formula, Amherst, with 79.3% of the student population, would increase its contribution by 4.81% over FY25, or $905,670; Pelham, with 5.1% of the students, would increase its contribution by 23%, or $244,807; Leverett, with 7.3% of the students, would increase its contribution by 14.10% or $230,356; and Shutesbury, with 8.2% of the students,would increase its contribution by 7.65% or $126,620. In past years, the region had applied “guardrails” (maximum increases) to limit the increases in assessments of the smaller towns, but this resulted in shifting a larger proportion of the funding to Amherst, an imbalance that increased each year.

According to DESE representative John Sullivan, the district has not followed the prescribed assessment method for the last seven years, and DESE is not going to approve any more exceptions.

School Superintendent E. Xiomara Herman invited representatives of the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to clarify the budgeting requirements. She said she realized that what the district had been doing in the past was high risk, because the budget and assessment methods were presented in March and if one town disagreed with the assessment method, the whole budgeting process would have to start over, and there was a danger that there would be no agreed upon budget by the time of spring town meetings. Last year, the Commissioner of Education gave the district a one-year approval of an amendment to the regional assessment agreement. That approval has expired. According to DESE representative John Sullivan, the district has not followed the  assessment method in its regional agreement for the last seven years, and DESE is not going to approve any more exceptions. He said, “We’ve let the district slide for many, many years in a row, and it didn’t seem like, according to the meetings that we were having with the administration, that you could come to an agreement on an alternative assessment that would satisfy all parties.”

How the Budget Is Created
DESE representative Michelle Griffin gave a brief overview of how a regional school budget is typically developed. The district first identifies all revenue sources outside of grants, such as state aid and minimum local contributions required of each town. The excess cost of providing the desired education for the district’s students is then apportioned among the towns according to the regional agreement, with transportation and capital costs added to the towns’ assessments. 

Districts may only use an alternate assessment method if it is specified in the regional agreement and if it has been approved by the Commissioner of Education by December 31 of the previous fiscal year. The RSC can decide each year whether to use the statutory assessment method or the approved alternate assessment. The alternate assessment method must be approved by all four towns in the Amherst-Pelham Regional District, while only three towns must approve the statutory method. Since the Amherst-Pelham Regional District does not currently have an approved alternate assessment method, it must use the statutory method this year.

Herman and Interim School Finance Director Shannon Bernacchia have been in regular discussion with DESE regarding the budgeting process.

RSC Decides on FY26 Budget
Once it became clear that the RSC had no choice regarding the assessment method, they needed to choose between four proposed budgets presented by Bernacchia. The first onehad the same bottom line as the budget previously approved at the March 14 RSC meeting, and restored four middle school teachers, two high school counselors, a 2/3 Prep Academy position and a 1/3 Middle School world language position. Total spending in that budget was increased by 5.13% over FY25. There was $194,872 that could be used to reinstate other positions.

The second budget option was a 4.61% increase over FY25 with a shortfall of $997,000. This was similar to the first budget, but only $9,000 in funds could be allocated in future discussion and 12 positions would be eliminated. Option 2 made Amherst’s contribution increase by 4.03%, Pelham’s by 22%, Leverett’s by 13.27%, and Shutesbury’s by 6.74%. The third option kept to the 4% increase mandated by the Amherst Town Manager. It led to a $1.2 million shortfall and the elimination of 16 positions. Amherst would only increase its contribution by 3.2%, Pelham by 21%, Leverett by 12.4%, and Shutesbury by 5.73%. 

Bernacchia developed the fourth option to keep Leverett’s increase to 6.5%, as stipulated by the Leverett select board. That option produced a budget with a $2.5 million shortfall and Amherst actually decreasing its FY26 allocation by 2.3% from FY25. Shutesbury’s assessment also decreased slightly. This, she said, was really not a viable option.

Amherst RSC member Jennifer Shiao moved that the committee accept the first budget option, since that is the total budget amount voted previously, and the RSC had no choice on how to “split the pie.” Shutesbury representative Anna Heard felt that Shutesbury would accept its increased allocation, and Pelham representative and RSC Chair Sarabess Kenney said the Pelham Finance Director had indicated that Pelham could manage its 22% increase. Amherst Town Manager Paul Bockelman said at the March 24 Town Council meeting that he thought Amherst could get to the 4.8% increase in option 1. Leverett representative Tilman Wolf said that the Leverett select board had put a 6.5% cap on any increase. Amherst representative Irv Rhodes supported Wolf in voting against option 1 because,he said, he felt the second option had a better chance of passing. Three of the four towns need to approve the budget for it to pass. 

Amherst representative Deb Leonard noted that the advantage of option 1 is that the base allocation on which subsequent budgets are determined is larger with that choice. Sarah Marshall noted that the cost differences between the options are relatively small in dollar amounts for the smaller towns, and the 5.13% increase budget is what the RSC had decided was acceptable previously. Bridget Hynes said that her survey of towns in the area showed that 15 towns west of Worcester were facing increases of 8 to 15% for school funding this year.

Pelham, Leverett, and Shutesbury will vote on the regional school budgets at their annual town meetings. The Amherst Town Council must approve the budget by a two-thirds majority before June 30. If three towns approve the budget, all towns are obligated to abide by it. If there is no budget approved by July 1, the region goes on a month-to-month budget based on FY25 and overseen by DESE until a FY26 budget is passed. This would result in a significant shortfall in funds because the budget would be limited to the FY25 amount..