RSU 60 trustees on Thursday reviewed a proposed multi-year support-staff agreement that staff said averages roughly 5.1% in the first year, 5.3% in the second and 5.2% in the third year and includes new benefit supplements and bonuses.

The discussion focused on implementation details and one specific sentence in the contract—on “page 22 f”—that board members said needs clearer language about which “life skills” and “behavior program” classrooms qualify for a bonus. The board moved and voted to table that clause so staff and the union can add a clarifying sentence; trustees said they want the list of employees who will receive the bonus to be supplied by Oct. 1 each year.

Why it matters: the contract covers dozens of hourly and support employees and affects next year’s personnel costs. Trustees asked for clearer documentation so future interpretations will match the parties’ intent and requested more detailed cost breakdowns before final ratification.

What trustees heard and asked: District staff presented the contract-level details and cost notes. They described the transportation agreement as a three-year deal that also covers the current year and noted the district’s difficulty producing a single total-dollar figure for hourly staff because of staffing fluctuations. Staff estimated an approximate $250,000 increase year-over-year for the support-staff unit (figure stated orally by staff) and identified a $71,007.47 increase in the 2026 line for transportation drivers. The board also heard the contract includes a new $1,100-per-year supplement for employees enrolled in a family health plan, a new daily $40 supplement when an administrator assigns a support employee to substitute in a classroom, and a new perfect-attendance bonus.

Questions and follow-up directions: Board members pressed for clarity on longevity payments and how longevity and base-wage increases compound; staff said they will provide a breakdown showing the dollar effect of longevity and the hourly-rate increase. Trustees also asked the district to produce the number of retirements, unfilled positions and positions removed so the board can better understand how the stated savings from reconfiguration were achieved. Staff agreed to follow up with the requested written details and to speak with the union (represented at the table by union president Rick Ingalls) about adding the clarifying language.

Outcome: The board voted to table the clause on page 22 f for clarification and directed staff to return with the proposed amendment and additional cost detail. No final ratification vote on this specific clause was recorded in the transcript excerpt; staff retained the record of negotiations and indicated the district and union will continue conversations.

Notes: District presenters repeatedly emphasized the practical difficulty of producing fixed total-dollar figures for hourly staff because of midyear staffing changes and federal grant interactions; trustees requested those reconciliations be provided in writing.