RSU 18 budget review: board debates middle‑school dean role versus classroom hires as staff propose alternate fund‑balance scenarios

Superintendent presented the revised FY27 budget and walked trustees through recent staffing adjustments and fund‑balance assumptions, prompting a lengthy discussion over whether a proposed middle‑school 'dean of students' should be an administrative role or a classroom‑facing hire.

The superintendent opened the continued budget review by saying the proposed budget stood at about $47.3 million (presented figure: $47,300,770, or roughly a 3.81% increase) after recent changes including removal of a $76,000 position and reallocation of duties. He told the board that health‑insurance enrollment was trending slightly below last year (about 96.7%–97% utilization), and outlined how employer contribution rates (10%, 8%, 6%) would alter the district’s percentage increase.

Why it matters: trustees must balance preserving instructional capacity with controlling tax‑rate impact and safeguarding fund balances. Members asked staff to produce alternate scenarios showing different uses of fund balance (staff had modeled an $800,000 draw; trustees requested $500,000 and $300,000 scenarios for comparison), and asked for a clearer town‑by‑town revenue picture before the budget vote.

In the meeting’s central personnel exchange, one trustee argued the role should be a classroom‑level hire—a special‑education teacher, counselor, or alternative‑education teacher—who would be physically present to support students and ed‑tech staff. “If you hire as an administrator, then you’re being pulled over time to do administrative things,” that trustee said, arguing for in‑room supports.

The superintendent responded that the proposed dean position was intended to spend most of the day working with students and supporting teachers and ed‑techs, not merely carrying out central administrative tasks. He described the role as supporting Tier‑1 behavior interventions and helping teachers manage classroom disruptions so instruction continues. “This position would work with students all day,” he told the board, adding it would also support teachers’ instructional work.

Several trustees pressed staff for numbers and alternatives. One requested that staff present a budget variant that included hiring a full‑time Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) rather than contracting for the service; staff estimated a full‑time BCBA could increase costs in the ballpark of tens of thousands of dollars and agreed to provide a concrete cost estimate at the next meeting.

Trustees also debated smaller operational lines. A trustee asked that the record or the next budget include per‑month kWh consumption in the hydro/energy analysis; another questioned a textbook line that had been budgeted at zero and urged adding a modest placeholder so teachers know funds are available for classroom sets.

On reserves, staff reminded trustees of a committed fuel reserve (about $200,000) and a capital reserve (more than $1 million), and described how routine use of an $800,000 fund‑balance draw could meaningfully reduce the district’s unassigned fund balance over several years. Trustees asked for clearer projections showing the effect of different fund‑balance withdrawals on tax impact and long‑term reserves.

What’s next: staff agreed to produce alternate budget scenarios (including $300k, $500k and $800k fund‑balance options), a town‑level revenue plan, a cost estimate for a full‑time BCBA, and clarifications on textbook and contracted‑services lines. The board will reconvene and consider the FY27 budget with those details ahead of the April vote.