Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston superintendent outlines proposed cuts affecting about 30 positions as schools face rising costs
Summary
Superintendent Jake Lang presented a budget package that would reduce district staffing and restructure several roles after a surge in special-education and utility costs; committee members urged caution, raised selling a city-owned building and requested school‑by‑school impact details.
Superintendent Jake Lang told the Lewiston School Committee at a March budget workshop that the district faces an unsustainable gap in the FY27 budget and has proposed a package of reductions and restructurings, including eliminating roughly 30 positions across administration, human resources, technology and instructional coaching.
Lang said the district’s cost drivers include contractual increases, rising substitute usage and a heavy special-education budget, and that the superintendent’s proposal would use roughly half of the district’s current fund balance if the community did not approve a larger budget in May. “Over time, Lewiston taxpayers have voiced the local tax burden is high and is hard to afford,” he said, and warned the committee it must make difficult choices if voters do not approve an increase that would be decided in a May 12 referendum.
Why it matters: The cuts would affect roles that provide direct student support—coaches, family-engagement liaisons, SEL staff and some building-based positions—which committee members and school leaders said could harm classroom supports and equity among schools.
Committee reaction and alternatives: Several members suggested non-staffing responses. Member Janet Bowden and others asked whether selling the underused property at 287 Main Street could raise revenue; Bowden said the building’s sale might offset personnel cuts. Lang and members cautioned that one-time building proceeds might only temporarily reduce pressure and that enrollment and space needs may grow, which could increase future costs.
Implementation details and next steps: The superintendent asked administration to finish presentations by 8 p.m. to allow public comment as previously advertised. Members asked for a school‑by‑school breakdown of how restructures would work and urged more information about which vacancies could be frozen rather than eliminated. The committee scheduled further budget workshops and a joint session with the city council to reconcile competing priorities.
Ending: The committee did not vote on budget adjustments at the workshop; members directed staff to provide additional details at upcoming meetings and to continue discussion ahead of the May referendum.
