RSU 10 officials present draft 2025–26 budget; administrators say $1.35 million in cuts needed to reach 8% target

Superintendent Deb outlined a preliminary 2025–26 budget and told the school board the draft currently projects a roughly 15.8% average increase to taxpayers, and that officials have identified about $615,000 in initial reductions but will need roughly $1,350,000 more to reach an 8% target.

Why it matters: The draft budget shows several large, fixed costs that drove the early draft increase — a projected 16% rise in health insurance premiums, higher transportation and out-of-district placement costs, and $3.3 million recorded for debt service on the new school building. Board members and administrators said balancing those pressures without additional state relief or cuts will be difficult ahead of the town warrant process.

Board and staff presented the numbers March 6, walking the board through each of the district’s 11 cost centers and the assumptions behind them. Deb said the district moved its health-insurance assumption up after recent vendor estimates: “We added another 5%. So we have 16% in our budget draft,” she told the board. The presentation shows that preliminary administrative reductions have already reduced the budget-to-budget increase from 19.82% to 18.03% but that more reductions will be required to lower the tax impact for member towns.

Administrators said debt service for the new Mount Valley Community School accounts for the largest single line increase in the state revenue worksheets; because the state sends subsidy for the debt payment, the amount appears both on the revenue side and the expenditure side of the budget outline. Finance staff said that without that debt-service amount the year‑to‑year budget‑to‑budget increase would be much smaller — roughly 9.61% in the draft presented — but the town impact still remains significant when the full budget is considered.

Officials noted a mix of one-time and recurring savings they already identified: reduced benefit assumptions for vacancies (changing assumed full‑family health coverage to a lower standard), delaying nonessential capital items such as gym bleachers and re‑surfacing projects, and postponing certain new hires or reassignments until the district can confirm ongoing revenues. The packet distributed to the board lists these reductions as examples the administration has already removed from the draft.

Several newly proposed positions and programs remain in play and will affect final figures if the board chooses to preserve them. Among the items flagged in the cost-center review were a family and consumer sciences teacher at Buckfield Junior‑Senior High School, an English‑language‑learners (ELL) teacher coordinator, and athletics and co‑curricular stipends (including volleyball and esports proposals). Administrators said stipends and other pay items are subject to the outcome of ongoing contract negotiations with employee groups, which could further affect final costs.

Finance staff also reminded the board of the size of the district’s available fund balance: the district used roughly $1.35 million in carryover for the current draft, leaving approximately $1.48 million available into the following year under the assumptions shown. Board members noted that fund‑balance choices affect how much the district can safely use year‑to‑year and that major draws reduce flexibility in future budget cycles.

What’s next: Administrators said they will continue internal reductions and bring a revised draft to the board. They listed meeting dates and said a special meeting on May 5 could be used, if necessary, for final adoption. Deb asked the board for direction about a target to aim for; multiple board members said they want the administration to continue identifying reductions toward the 8% goal but acknowledged the scale of cuts required.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final tax‑rate target at the meeting; administrators will present additional reduction options and updated estimates at the next work session so the board can set a formal recommendation to go before voters.