Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 5 voters approve FY2026 spending plan; written-ballot article passes 84-7
Summary
At the RSU 5 annual budget meeting May 14, voters approved the district's FY2026 spending plan and a written-ballot article increasing local funds. The meeting included discussion of staffing reductions, targeted new positions, use of fund balance to reduce tax impact, and multiple reserve transfers.
RSU 5 voters at the district's annual budget meeting on May 14 approved the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 spending plan and a written-ballot article that passed 84–7, according to results announced at the meeting. The operating budget and related warrant articles — including authorizations to move reserve funds and accept grants — were approved by the assembled voters and will go forward to the referendum vote on June 10.
The budget the meeting authorized the school board to expend for July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, was presented to voters as $44,367,929 (Article 15). The board earlier described a proposed operating budget of roughly $44.46 million that includes negotiated salary and benefit increases that together account for about 82.5% of the total. To reduce the tax impact, the board said it would use $1,068,000 of undesignated fund balance and a projected $259,000 in interest income. The district estimated the tax impact by town as 8.83% in Durham, 4.95% in Freeport and 7.87% in Pownal.
The district described three budget priorities: maintaining high-quality programming, sustaining student supports, and upgrading district infrastructure and safety. To respond to declining enrollment, the budget as presented reduces personnel including four educators, five educational technicians and the district mechanic, while requesting new or expanded positions including a grade-4 teacher at Mast Landing School, a behavior response-to-intervention educational technician at Durham Community School and additional days for a guidance secretary at Freeport High School. The board also proposed continued funding for capital projects including Freeport High School track and tennis facilities, ongoing fleet replacement, and security and life-safety upgrades funded through local budget and capital reserve accounts.
During discussion, resident Ashley Schumacher of Freeport urged voters to support the budget and moved to amend Article 1 to restore specific positions that the proposed budget eliminated. Schumacher said, "I believe strongly that our community has a unique opportunity to choose our values and live them even and especially when things are hard," and she proposed restoring a 0.5 FTE ELA teacher at Freeport High School, a 1.0 FTE grade‑5 teacher at Durham Community School and a 1.0 FTE educational technician at Mast Landing School for a combined increase she calculated at $201,000. Moderator Gregory Im explained that voters may amend dollar amounts but that detailed spending decisions remain with the school board; the amendment failed on a voice vote and the meeting proceeded on the original Article 1 amount of $19,356,261 (regular instruction), which voters approved.
Article 14, the warrant article that asks voters to raise $15,405,513.13 in additional local funds above the state's Essential Programs and Services (EPS) funding model, was conducted by written ballot as required; ballots were counted at the meeting and the article passed 84 yes to 7 no. Moderator Im read statutory language describing the EPS funding model and the town-by-town amounts tied to state subsidy calculations. Voters also approved a suite of reserve-authority and transfer articles (Articles 17–23 and others) that authorize the board to move fund balances into regular instruction, special education, student and staff support, transportation and capital reserve accounts and to expend those funds as needed in the board's discretion.
The meeting included procedural explanation from Moderator Gregory Im about meeting rules and voting methods, and two residents asked procedural questions: one asked how many people present work for the district; board and clerks said the clerks could report the number of registered voters present but could not readily classify attendees by employment. After closing business, the moderator reminded attendees that the fiscal-year operating budget approved by the legislative body will appear on the referendum ballot on June 10.
Less-critical details and next steps: the meeting approved the region 10 career and technical education operating budget and several Region 10 capital reserve transfers; the board also authorized acceptance of federal or state grants as received (Article 27). Several dollar amounts read aloud during the meeting appeared garbled in the spoken record (see clarifying details) and the formal article amounts as recorded in the warrant and votes are reported above.
