RSU 10 school board directors agreed during their meeting to put an elementary social worker and a behavior interventionist back into the draft 2025–26 budget after public testimony and sustained discussion about student supports.

The decision came during a lengthy budget review in which administrators presented a list of proposed reductions designed to bring the districts projected tax impact down toward an 8% overall increase. The restored positions together were described in the discussion as costing about $166,000.

Why it matters: Board members and public commenters said cutting student-facing positions would undermine gains in behavior and academic supports and could increase out-of-district special-education costs. Administrators said the district must still find further reductions to reach its target and flagged rising benefit and special-education tuition costs as key pressures.

Board and public debate
Deb Sanders, the superintendent, outlined proposed reductions including administrative adjustments and smaller supply and service cuts. She told the board she had offered to continue serving as interim special-education director for one more year, saying, "I've offered to do it again," and that doing so would save the district roughly $115,117 on administrative staffing costs.

Leah (business manager) and other administrators walked the board through a multi-page cut list and explained technical drivers of town tax shifts, including property valuation changes and enrollment factors. Leah said trimming projected benefits for vacant positions from full-family coverage to a $15,000 budget placeholder produced roughly $190,000 in savings already built into the draft.

Multiple residents pressed the board to spare classroom and student-facing services. Mike Bernier, a recently retired teacher, described the stakes for taxpayers and residents: "If my property taxes start hitting 8 or $9,000 per year ... I may have to sell." Derek Neto of Buckfield and other residents urged the board to pursue administrative cuts before classroom reductions.

Board members including Peter DePhillip, Bonnie (last name not specified), Kristen Chapman and others debated which positions to restore. Peter and Bonnie emphasized the positive impact theyd seen from the behavior supports. Bonnie said, "I don't think it serves our staff or students to take the behavior techs away."

Outcome and next steps
By the end of the discussion the board took informal direction: restore the elementary social worker and a behavior interventionist (cost cited in discussion at about $166,000) and direct administrators to find additional reductions elsewhere to bring the overall proposed increase closer to the boards target. Board members said they expect the administrative team to return with alternate cuts at a scheduled administrative meeting and at the next public budget workshop.

Administrators highlighted constraints: special-education tuition and out-of-district placements rise substantially year-over-year and nursing and insurance costs are increasing. Leah warned that medical insurance pricing and state special-education funding calculations were still in flux and could change the final numbers.

Board members also discussed the possibility of using money from the districts capital reserve to reduce next years tax impact; the capital account balance was reported in discussion as about $150,000 (approximate, per the packet discussion), which trustees said could be considered for one-time uses but would not address recurring costs.

Ending
Administrators will meet to identify additional reductions and will bring updated numbers back to the board. The restored student-support positions remain in the draft budget pending the boards final decisions in subsequent budget hearings.