Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston school committee narrows budget options, asks admin to find additional savings
Summary
At an April 15 workshop the Lewiston School Committee reviewed Superintendent Jake Langley’s budget scenarios, pushed to preserve key student-facing supports, and directed administration to identify $100,000–$200,000 of savings in teaching-and-learning administration ahead of a May referendum.
On Wednesday evening the Lewiston School Committee heard an update on the district budget and signaled support for deeper cuts while protecting several student-facing positions.
Superintendent Jake Langley told the committee the district is continuing to refine assumptions, including a revised health-insurance projection of 7.35 percent (down from a 15 percent placeholder) and an estimated state “bridge” supplemental that Langley said could add roughly $1.794 million if certified. "This is my best estimate and not something that is going to show up in the mail next week," Langley said, urging committee members to treat the number as provisional.
Langley framed three option packages for local voters: option A (largest reductions), option B (moderate), and option C (smallest reductions). He said roughly 68.8 percent of the proposed budget is state subsidy — about $90 million of a budget that "exceeds $130 million" — and that staff costs account for roughly 70 percent of expenditures. He warned that deep reductions in personnel would reduce district capacity. "We want to have a chance to review potential reductions as we move forward," Langley told members.
Committee members debated whether to set a single target dollar figure or to pick positions line-by-line. Several members urged a topline number to guide administration; others said the district should prioritize safety, special-education obligations and core instruction. Member Luke Jensen said he doubted the referendum would pass on the first vote and urged caution about cutting positions that directly affect student safety and instruction; Member Glenn pushed the opposite approach, arguing the committee should favor the deepest cuts to demonstrate fiscal restraint to voters.
On items the committee discussed in detail, members generally: - Rejected a superintendent proposal to combine the middle- and high-school librarian roles into a single 7–12 librarian plus an ed-tech position; a straw poll favored keeping separate middle- and high-school librarian positions. "Librarians teach information and media literacy, not just books," one member said. - Approved, by straw poll, adding two general-purpose social-worker positions (one at Lewiston Middle School and one at Lewiston High School) to the general-fund budget to bolster clinical supports at older grade levels; administration estimated those positions at roughly the mid‑$80,000s to low‑$90,000s each in the packet. - Asked administration to find $100,000–$200,000 of savings by restructuring the middle level of the teaching-and-learning division (district literacy/math/MTSS specialists) and to return with detailed scenarios rather than an immediate line-by-line cut.
On process, the committee adopted a "parking-lot" method: staff will compile the category-level choices made at the workshop and produce a single proposed package for a final vote at the committee’s next meeting. The superintendent said he will reconcile any additions the committee wishes to restore and compute the final local-tax ask for the ballot.
The committee’s decisions at this workshop were advisory; the budget that goes to voters must still be finalized and posted before the referendum. The next regular meeting and any vote were scheduled by the committee to align with the city’s timeline and upcoming public hearings.
