MSAD 6 presents initial budget proposal; board debates cuts, SRO and capital projects

Superintendent Clay Gleason and finance staff presented an “initial proposal” of the FY‑26 budget at the RSU 06/MSAD 06 Board meeting on April 7, describing it as a baseline that rolls forward current programs and builds in projected cost increases.

“It's not a finished work,” Gleason said, asking the board for high‑level direction before Finance and Facilities refines the package. Don, who presented the packet details, said the baseline assumes existing programs and projects typical cost increases such as negotiated contract steps and higher health‑insurance rates.

Key figures and proposals included: - A baseline general‑fund increase of approximately 5.0 percent; the district estimated a 5.8 percent increase in the local assessment because state aid did not rise at the same rate. Don stated that the grand total for all funds showed a 5.29 percent increase. - A proposed EEI energy‑and‑lighting renovation for multiple buildings, described by staff as a 20‑year lease‑type arrangement costing approximately $2.5 million to $2.8 million up front; staff estimated lease payments of about $210,000 per year over 20 years. - A proposed additional Buxton‑based school resource officer (SRO) at an estimated $93,000 annual direct cost; staff also added $1,000 to honor the Cumberland County SRO contract for Officer Bradway. - Changes to facilities and contingency planning: facilities contingency was reduced from $375,000 to $300,000 with planned capital‑reserve spending of roughly $700,000 on identified repairs; the district said it expects roughly $2,000,000 remaining in capital reserve after those transactions. - Nutrition services and adult‑education projections: food services were shown with a large percentage increase (reported as 13.34 percent) driven by an attempt to reflect actual spending and reimbursements more accurately.

Gleason and Don described a list of “supplemental” items in the packet and said Finance and Facilities will continue working to reduce the proposal before a final board recommendation. Don noted some functional changes that reduced baseline requests — for example, a vacant mechanic position was not proposed to be refilled because hiring proved difficult.

Directors debated tradeoffs. Several urged exploring staffing reductions through attrition rather than layoffs. Director Welch and others suggested the district should examine enrollment and staffing ratios before committing to new positions. Director Coits emphasized preserving the fund balance: “You lose that and it's going to put us in a really tight spot,” she said, referring to carry‑forward funds used to smooth tax impacts.

Several directors asked for more data on the SRO proposal and call frequency to specific schools before approving the Buxton‑based officer. Superintendent Gleason described initial talks with Buxton officials and said the additional SRO would be prioritized for Buxton schools but would remain available on a district rotation.

Carry‑forward (fund balance) use was a recurring concern. Don presented a short history of the fund balance and warned that a high reliance on carry‑forward could leave the district with limited reserves for cash‑flow and unexpected costs. He said the district budgeted using $4,310,000 of carry‑forward in the FY‑26 baseline but anticipated actual carry‑forward usage nearer $2.5 million based on year‑end projections.

No budget motion or vote was taken; Finance and Facilities will meet again to refine proposals and report back to the full board. Gleason asked the board for direction on whether to keep or remove select supplemental items such as the EEI project and the Buxton SRO.