RSU 52/MSAD 52 proposes $37.8 million FY26 budget; special education and facilities drive the increase

RSU 52/MSAD 52 administrators presented a proposed fiscal 2026 budget of $37,827,028 at a March 6 budget workshop, calling for an overall increase of $2,800,000 (8.08%) and saying the local tax requirement would rise about 11.13%.

The budget message centered on two large drivers: special education and facilities maintenance. “The two warrant articles with the largest increase[ ] in special ed, $1,200,000, and facilities maintenance, $740,000,” administrators said in the presentation, and repeatedly stressed that staffing and contracted services for special education plus deferred capital needs account for most of the growth.

Why it matters: district officials told the board the package tries to balance classroom investments — notably new reading materials rolled K–6 next year and math materials for grades 3–8 — while addressing rising costs for MaineCare-covered services, contracted speech and therapy providers, and a backlog of facility work (boiler, HVAC, lighting and other capital projects). Administrators also asked the board to formally join the state pre-K cohort that brings a one-time $99,000 outfitting grant for pre-K classrooms.

Budget highlights and drivers - Total proposed budget: $37,827,028 (proposed FY26) — increase of $2,800,000 or 8.08% over the current year; administrators reported the state subsidy (ED 279) is projected to rise but the local share rises as well. - Special education: administrators told the board special education and related services are the single largest increase, shown on presentation slides as roughly $1.2 million of the budget growth. Staff shortages have driven higher use of contracted services; the district is also evaluating whether to bill MaineCare directly for therapy services to recover revenue. - Facilities: facilities/maintenance warrant articles were shown as a $740,000 driver, reflecting a list of capital projects and minor capital increases. Administrators noted some debt service reductions from paid-off loans but added new capital borrowing for boilers, HVAC and lighting work. - Curriculum and instruction: the budget includes roughly $150,000–$160,000 for new math instructional materials (grades 3–8) and roughly $208,000 for reading materials spread across schools; administrators said much of the initial material cost was grant-funded but recurring annual costs are now in the operating budget. - Pre-K expansion: the district plans to join the state cohort and expects to receive $99,000 to outfit pre‑K classrooms; administrators emphasized this funding is one-time and contingent on opting in now. - Compensation and benefits: administrators budgeted an estimated 10% increase for health insurance while noting the Maine Benefits Trust letter showed a possible statewide increase near 18%; they said actual district costs should be known before the final vote. - Technology and devices: the staff noted planned Chromebook purchases for grades on a refresh cycle (ninth grade this year via MLTI) and costs connected to replacing older copiers and buying licensing for district systems.

Special education detail: staffing, contracts and MaineCare Special education leaders told the board that rising out‑of‑district tuition, higher MaineCare-related costs, and expanded use of contracted speech and therapy services are the primary causes of the large special education increase. Rebecca (staff member) summarized that some services are MaineCare-eligible (occupational therapy, speech, physical therapy) and that the district pays a state/local share for those services.

District leaders said they are investigating whether to resume direct MaineCare billing — a program the district operated in the past — and are talking with other business managers and the state about costs, billing overhead, and whether potential revenue would reduce state EPS allocations (which could offset the benefit). “We are in the beginning process of trying to figure out if that would be in our best interest,” administrators said. They warned that outside districts that pursued billing invested up-front staff resources and that arrangements with third-party billers can carry fees.

Staffing changes and grant reallocation Administrators presented several personnel shifts and proposed cuts to keep the budget manageable: elimination of multiple EdTech 1 and EdTech 3 positions (some funded previously by grants/federal entitlement), moving some positions from general fund to federal special-education entitlement to preserve service levels, and replacing two vacant speech‑pathologist positions with expanded contracted services until hires can be found. The budget also moves an instructional coach previously funded by grants onto the general fund in anticipation of grant reductions.

Board reaction and next steps Board members repeatedly asked for time to review the books and wanted administration to map out clear scenarios showing what an 8% or lower ask to towns would require in cuts. One member said the board should set a target percentage to present to the public and asked administration to return with options that show what would be reduced at each target. Another urged caution on cutting facilities, saying deferred maintenance would lead to higher long‑term costs.

Administrators agreed to run follow‑up workshops. They said they would present updated figures, including final health‑insurance rates and a revised liability-insurance figure (administration reported a $15,000 downward revision would appear in the next budget update). Board members were told the formal board vote on the budget is scheduled in April; administrators said additional workshops will be added before that final vote.

Quotes “This budget really focuses on a couple of areas, curriculum and instruction,” said Carrie (staff member), who led the presentation and repeatedly walked the board through curriculum and special‑education drivers. “We are in the beginning process of trying to figure out if [billing MaineCare] would be in our best interest,” Rebecca (staff member) said during the special‑education discussion.

What’s next The board set a follow-up workshop to continue detailed line‑by‑line review and asked administration to prepare reconciled scenarios that show the effect on programming of several percentage targets for the local ask. Administrators said they will return with updated insurance numbers and more data about special‑education contracting and MaineCare billing options.

Ending note Administrators emphasized that many budget increases reflect legally required services and recurring costs associated with curriculum material rollouts and capital work; board members asked administration to return with clear trade‑off scenarios that would produce lower local tax increases for voters to consider.