Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 04 board directs administration to seek roughly $302,000 in reductions and return with revised referendum budget
Summary
Following a June public budget hearing that resulted in a failed referendum, the RSU 04 board instructed administration to prepare a revised budget with reductions that would lower the proposed tax increase to about 2.2 percent and return for approval at the next meeting.
The Regional School Unit 04 school board directed district staff to prepare a revised referendum budget that reduces the proposed tax impact and returns to the board for final approval. Board members discussed a package of possible reductions and funding offsets and instructed administration to produce detailed cost‑center adjustments ahead of the next meeting.
Superintendent Katie Gronden and finance staff presented the mechanics and timeline: the board set an anticipated hearing and referendum schedule (final board approval targeted for June 25, public hearing July 9 and referendum July 29). Staff identified four line‑item changes that were possible without reopening the entire budget: a previously added $127,008.38 for maintenance that had been put back on by public request; a $15,000 reduction from a delay in a private‑plan payment; a potential $7,000 reduction to contracted Siemens monitoring services; and a $6,900 reduction after a new summer Title grant award.
Board members also discussed using year‑end reserves and a planned payoff of the Siemens loan to free roughly $145,000 in cash that could be repurposed for maintenance rather than remain as a loan payment. After discussion members coalesced around a target reduction of about $301,738 (a combination of the options above and additional adjustments discussed during the meeting) that would move the district’s proposed tax increase to roughly 2.2 percent. Board members said they will ask administration to return with detailed cost‑center changes and the formal warrant language for the next meeting.
Several trustees urged making reductions large enough to be meaningful to voters. Nancy said small adjustments would be seen as a token change and recommended a deeper reduction. Other trustees urged caution so essential maintenance and programs are not lost; one board member noted that the public had separately proposed raising one warrant article during the same meeting and that community views are not uniform.
Board members agreed on next steps: administration will prepare line‑by‑line adjustments that implement the agreed‑upon reductions, confirm which one‑time reserve uses are permissible, and bring final figures and warrant language back to the board for formal approval and scheduling of the public hearing and referendum.
