RSU 22 trustees debate using contingency fund vs. reserves to reduce excess fund balance

Superintendent Nick Raymond and district staff presented a review of RSU 22's audited fund balance and recommended changes to how the district stores excess funds.

The audit lists a total fund balance of $11,686,751; after subtracting a $3,000,000 carry-forward appropriation and the district's designated reserves, staff calculated an undesignated fund balance of about $7,345,251. State law limits school districts' unallocated balances to 9% of the prior fiscal year; staff said RSU 22's FY24 9% threshold is $3,361,952.42, leaving an overage staff calculated at about $3,983,298.56 that must be the subject of a three‑year spend-down plan if not reduced.

District staff outlined two approaches: continue the current set of designated reserve accounts (capital, athletic facility, technology and others) or stop building some of the designated reserves and rely more on the district's non‑lapsing contingency fund established by warrant (Article 19) under section 1482‑B(3) of Title 20‑A. Staff said the contingency language delegates authority to the school board to expense contingency sums by public vote when an emergency need exists, and noted that the contingency remains available while reserve accounts are more tightly designated and therefore less flexible.

The presentation listed current reserve account balances in the district's records (examples cited by staff): capital reserve $863,813; athletic facility $948,007.61; technology $605,025; fuel stabilization $200,000; special education $100,000; and energy $50,000. Staff proposed a recommended capital deposit of $425,000 that included roughly $75,000 for a district security platform (Syntegix), $150,000 for equipment replacement (about $25,000 per school), and $200,000 dedicated to playground replacements over a multi‑year schedule.

Staff also described the Syntegix security platform under consideration: a wearable badge/panic‑button system with tiered alerts (office notification at three presses, emergency services at eight presses). Staff estimated the one‑year installed cost at roughly $72,000–$75,000 and said the vendor offers payment in equal installments spread up to five years. Staff said the district will pursue grants but cautioned grant award decisions are not made until the fall.

The central office building replacement was presented as an eventual capital priority. Staff referred to prior 2021 estimates that ranged from about $1.1 million (remodel) to roughly $1.3 million (remodel plus addition) and said last year's modular option came in just under $1 million; staff did not present a new definitive quote and said any building project would require public outreach and a referendum. Staff said the district would set aside a separate reserve if the board chooses to advance a central office replacement plan.

Board members and town representatives raised a mix of fiscal and communication concerns: whether citizens would accept shifting to contingency rather than line‑item reserves; how reducing additions to the unallocated fund balance (for example using year‑end surplus to offset local appropriations) would affect town mill rates over several years; and how to explain the plan in outreach materials. Several board members favored keeping capital, athletic and technology reserves earmarked while moving other potential reserves (fuel stabilization, energy, special education) toward contingency, with a multi‑year approach to depletion and monitoring.

Next steps included preparing updated budget articles that reduce or reallocate Articles 2 (special education) and 9 (maintenance) if the board elects the contingency route, refining cost estimates for the central office, pursuing available grants for Syntegix, and scheduling additional public outreach before finalizing warrant language and recommended carry‑forward amounts.