Superintendent Bill opened a community forum portion of the Maple Run Unified School District Board meeting on Nov. 5 and presented the administration's preliminary budget context for fiscal year 2027. "Our overall budget is $77,714,822," Superintendent Bill said, and noted that because the district runs the Northwest Career & Technical Center there is "an artificial $4,000,000 increase" in the gross budget; after removing the in-and-out technical-center entries the comparable figure is $73,635,982.

Why it matters: The board asked the public to help prioritize goals that will guide budget trade-offs because the district faces multiple upward pressures (benefit cost increases, possible state buy-down changes, declining enrollment and negotiated salary increases) that could materially affect the education tax rate this spring.

Key details and board direction: Bill and business manager Bree walked the board and public through several headline figures and assumptions used to model tax impact. The district counted 2,565 students for a simplified per-pupil figure of "a little over $30,000". Presenters emphasized that this is a nonstandard, illustrative calculation: "You wouldn't see this number anywhere else published in any Vermont finance piece because it's not a way that's considered in Vermont finance to do this calculation," Bill said.

Administrators broke instruction into three tiers and estimated approximate per-student costs: Tier 1 (general education) as the largest share; Tier 2 interventions roughly $6,300 per student; Tier 3 higher-intensity supports representing roughly $31,000 per child for those students receiving the most intensive services. The technical center (NCT) budget was described separately at about $4.1 million and roughly $12,200 per tech-center student.

Benefits and staffing: The presentation highlighted that health benefits are a significant driver (staffers said benefits are approximately 14% of the budget and the most-used CDHP Gold family plan costs the district about $38,000 per family plan). Administrators estimated a 7.4% healthcare cost increase for FY27 and noted that negotiated and settled salary provisions matter: "One percent change in teacher salaries equals about $409,000," Bill said. The district reported 34 currently unfilled positions (four licensed and 30 ESP or nonunion), which the administration estimated would equal roughly $2.8 million if left unfilled.

State and federal factors: The board was briefed on external factors that affect local taxes. The superintendent explained that last year the state used a one-time $125 million general-fund "buy-down" of education costs; if that is not repeated the board was told the district-level effect could approach 9¢ on the education tax rate. Presenters also estimated possible federal funding reductions of roughly $500,000 (about 1.1¢) and said final federal numbers often arrive very late (likely June–July of the next fiscal year).

Tax-rate sensitivities: Board members and administrators used district figures to show how incremental dollars affect the tax rate locally (an education penny was estimated at $465,000 for Maple Run). The administration provided multiple sensitivity figures and a summary table in the handout showing additive impacts if all unfavorable factors occur simultaneously.

Board request and next steps: Administrators asked the board to give a starting percentage for budget modeling. After discussion the board asked administration to prepare multiple scenarios so the community can see concrete trade-offs; several board members urged three models (for example, 5%, 4% and 3%). Administrators indicated they would return with model budgets to the first December meeting and that modeling would be informed by upcoming negotiation strategy in executive session. "If the board said start with a level-service budget, we'd start with a level-service budget. But then we'd be back to: where do we want to cut?" Bill said.

Public participation: As part of the meeting's community forum, attendees were instructed to discuss priorities at tables and use rank-choice colored dots to indicate which district goals to protect or prioritize; administrators asked volunteers to capture table notes on chart paper for board review.

What wasn't decided: The board did not set a final budget number at this meeting. No formal budget adoption vote occurred; administrators were asked to return with scenarios and to incorporate community priorities gathered at the forum.

Provenance: The budget presentation and related discussion occur throughout the meeting transcript beginning with the community forum announcement and the budget slides and continuing through the budget-targets discussion; evidence excerpts include the superintendent's gross/net budget figures and the business manager's assumptions slides.

Ending: The board approved the non-personnel core budget assumptions (see separate action) and directed administrators to produce modeled budgets for follow-up review and public discussion at upcoming meetings.