RSU 18 board debates FY27 budget; superintendent outlines cuts, insurance scenarios and fund-balance options

Superintendent (presenter) outlined revisions to the proposed FY27 RSU 18 budget, saying recent position changes and reassignments reduced the draft total to about $47,300,770 (a 3.81% increase). The board pressed staff for more detailed line‑by‑line comparisons to actuals, and asked for scenarios showing the tax impact of using smaller amounts of fund balance.

The superintendent described specific staffing changes: the district removed a vacant position (salary and benefits roughly $76,000) and shifted some data‑specialist duties into existing roles. He also reported moving the athletic director stipend later in the staffing mix, noting the net effect on the budget is modest. "So as of 03/04/2026, the budget was at $47,364,001.28; after this change that now stands at 47,300,770, or 3.81%," the presenter said.

Why it matters: board members said the public expects clarity about what is driving increases and where savings can be found. Several members pushed for modeling that ties proposed budget figures more closely to current actuals, not prior budgets, to avoid large unexplained swings between years.

Insurance and fund‑balance scenarios: The superintendent said insurance rate assumptions are a significant driver of the percentage change; the budget currently assumes a 10% health‑insurance cost rate, with hypothetical outcomes at 8% or 6% that would reduce the increase toward 3.2–3.5%. He noted the district has a Benefits Trust offset that may soften increases but that final insurer decisions were not yet in. The presenter also laid out fund balances: a fuel reserve (~$200,000), a capital reserve (over $1,000,000), and an unassigned fund balance of about $3.5 million. He warned that continually using $800,000 a year from fund balance could deplete reserves over several years and asked the board to consider restoring some balance to the reserves.

Special programs and personnel questions: Much of the debate centered on a proposed middle‑school "dean of students" position meant to support students with social‑emotional needs and to assist teachers and ed‑tech staff in the alternative‑education space. Some board members favored hiring a teacher or special‑education staff who would provide direct, in‑room support; others supported an administrator who could coordinate supports across classrooms. Staff described current alternative‑education staffing as a mix of ed‑techs and partial special‑education coverage and said a dedicated role could expand capacity.

Other line items raised: members pressed staff about a near‑zero high‑school textbook line and asked whether building supply lines or curriculum cycles would cover classroom sets; staff said building principals process teacher requests and that textbook cycles can be budgeted on a separate line when needed. The board also heard that increases in contracted speech services (about $30,000) are largely to cover additional AAC evaluations while some speech positions remain unfilled; HubUp was named as a virtual provider used for contracted services.

Next steps: Board members asked staff to return with pro‑forma budget scenarios that (a) show the tax impact of using $0, $300,000, $500,000 or $800,000 of fund balance and (b) include an option that adds a full‑time BCBA so the board can see the bottom‑line effect. Staff agreed to post updated materials and revenue projections on the district website ahead of the next meetings. The board set follow‑up meetings for more detailed line‑item review before the anticipated April vote.

The board moved to an executive session later in the agenda and reconvened for other business; the budget discussion will continue at the next scheduled meeting.