Superintendent lays out cuts to reach zero‑percent increase; board adopts $32.25 million operating budget

Regional School District 08’s superintendent presented a set of proposed reductions on Monday night intended to bring the district’s 2026–27 operating budget to a zero‑percent increase, and the board voted to adopt a $32,246,800 operating budget after public comment urging voters to turn out.

Dr. McNamara told the board the district’s original 2026–27 proposal was approximately $34,176,011 (about a 4.77% increase). Following earlier reductions and action after a failed May referendum, that figure had been trimmed and the administration identified additional cuts totaling roughly $250,000 so the board could reach a zero‑percent increase. “We will need to reduce…to get us to 0%,” Dr. McNamara said while outlining the district’s options.

The administration proposed a series of personnel and line‑item reductions, including: a one‑day furlough for central‑office leadership (estimated $8,682); reducing the central office general wage increase from 3% to 2.5% (about $25,000 savings for administrators); not moving forward with two requested positions — an instructional technology specialist (estimated savings about $91,029 plus roughly $3,600 in start‑up furniture) and an indoor/outdoor maintainer (about $89,578, total compensation); and reducing an administrative assistant from 12 months to 10.5 months (about $11,733). The administration also listed program and operational reductions such as cutting out‑of‑district summer school transportation for students with special education services (approximately $15,820), trimming professional development ($4,500), supplies ($3,000) and conference travel ($1,500).

Board members asked clarifying questions about prior transportation reductions, the minimum budget requirement (MBR) and how deeper cuts could interact with enrollment calculations. Administration staff cautioned that special‑education transportation is a variable expense tied to registrations and IEP changes and that shifting below certain budget thresholds could require further MBR review.

During the public‑comment period several residents urged the board both to continue outreach (including building tours) and to encourage broad voter turnout from the district’s three towns. One commenter asked the board to commission a study of how the district has used excess funds at year‑end over the past five years and how those practices related to past bond decisions; another speaker, a local teachers‑association leader, noted seven positions have already been cut and urged residents to vote to support the schools.

After discussion the board moved to adopt an aggregate package of reductions (administration listed an aggregate figure of about $254,442 as the slate of proposed cuts to meet the target); the motion was seconded and passed. The board then moved to adopt the proposed 2026–27 operating budget in the amount of $32,246,800; the motion passed. The transcript does not record individual roll‑call vote tallies for either motion.

The administration said it will update the levy/operating numbers to reflect the approved reductions and proceed toward the district’s stated next steps, including the district budget meeting on June 15 and the planned referendum date of Jan. 16. The board thanked attendees and adjourned into the special meeting to finalize the actions.