RSU 18 board debates FY27 budget, weighing dean-of-students role and use of fund balance; approves administrative-assistant contract

The RSU 18 Board of Directors on March 4 reviewed the proposed FY27 budget and debated whether to add a dean of students at the middle school or to prioritize classroom teachers and counselors to provide in-room behavioral supports.

The discussion, led by the presenter responsible for the budget packet, centered on a proposed budget of about $47.3 million (the presenter said the proposal stood at $47,364,001.28 as of March 4 and, after recent edits, was running at roughly $47,300,770, a 3.81% increase). The presenter said health-insurance assumptions are a major driver — the budget currently assumes a 10% insurance cost increase, and if rates come in at 8% or 6% the overall budget increase would fall to roughly 3.5% or near flat, respectively.

Why it matters: board members framed the debate around where added dollars best support students. Supporters of a dean-of-students argued the role would increase capacity for social-emotional supports districtwide and relieve teachers; critics cautioned that hiring an administrator could shift attention away from in-class supports and urged consideration of hiring a teacher, counselor or a full-time board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA) instead.

Board members and staff described the alternative-education space at the middle school as staffed now by two educational technicians after a departure, which limits how many students can access the program. "A dedicated person ... would increase the capacity for that program and be able to support more students," a staff member said about a dedicated position for that role. Other members said they wanted clearer scope-of-work language and cost comparisons showing how a teacher, counselor or administrator would change daily supports for students.

Line-item questions surfaced throughout the meeting. Members asked about a proposed 50.3% increase for an assistant-principal at the middle school and a zeroed high-school textbook line; several trustees suggested restoring at least a small placeholder so teachers know funds are available for classroom sets. Staff explained that textbook and building-level requests are handled through building principal budgets and that larger curriculum-textbook purchases are budgeted separately.

Staff also explained a proposed $30,000 increase in contracted services for speech was driven mainly by a rise in AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) evaluations and a temporary need to contract virtual speech services (vendor cited as HubUp) because of short staffing.

On revenue-side questions, the presenter described the insured-value-tuition (IVF) calculation used for payments to private academies and said the FY27 IVF line was projected at about $252,000; staff noted that actual invoices and anticipated incoming/outgoing students affect that number and pledged to reconcile differences for a future report.

Fund balance and risk: the presenter reviewed the district’s fund balances and reserve accounts, including a fuel reserve of about $200,000 and unassigned general-fund balance of approximately $3.5 million. He presented options for using fund balance to lessen tax impacts — scenarios using $300,000, $500,000 or $800,000 — and warned that repeatedly spending $800,000 would materially draw down reserves over time. "If we continue to do that every single year, the unassigned fund balance in four years will be down around $300,000," he said.

Requested follow-up: trustees asked staff to bring back pro forma budget scenarios showing the tax impact and program tradeoffs for alternative fund-balance uses (including a version that uses $500,000), an estimate for hiring a full-time BCBA rather than contracting that service, monthly kilowatt-hour consumption data for the hydro/energy analysis, and a full revenue plan by town.

Vote and contract action: after a short recess for an executive session on negotiations with administrative assistants (the chair cited the statute named in the meeting), the board returned and voted to approve the administrative-assistants collective-bargaining agreement "as written with the edits and collections." The motion to approve was moved by Andy and seconded by Sarah; the chair said the vote was unanimous (exact roll-call or tally was not specified in the transcript).

What’s next: staff will post the rolling-budget document and the additional requested analyses ahead of the next board meeting; the board indicated it plans to reconvene to review the requested cost scenarios before the April 1 budget vote.