East Kingston School District budget of $4.01 million heads to ballot after failed $2.95M amendment

The East Kingston School District’s proposed operating budget of $4,010,428 will appear on the ballot after town voters at the Jan. 31 deliberative session rejected a citizen amendment that would have cut the figure to $2,950,000.

School Board Chair Kirsten Sorocco summarized the board’s rationale for the proposed budget, citing fixed, nonnegotiable costs — health and dental insurance, contractual salary steps under the collective bargaining agreement and transportation — that the district cannot unilaterally reduce. “The operating budget right now is really focused on fixed costs,” Sorocco said, and the board emphasized efforts to limit discretionary spending while preserving programs.

Principal Brandon French, who produced the district’s budget video, highlighted academic gains and new instructional strategies the board says will improve outcomes. “At EKES, we are very proud of our students’ academic growth over the last 5 years,” French said in the presentation, and the district noted that state assessment proficiency rates for the most recent year were presented as context for the budget.

At the deliberative session several residents pressed the board on rising cost‑per‑pupil figures as enrollment declined. Ron Morales, who moved the amendment, said the town should aim for roughly $25,000 per pupil and proposed reducing the operating budget to $2,950,000. “I’d like to propose an amendment that we reduce the budget to $2,950,000,” Morales said during public comment.

SAU finance staff cautioned that the Department of Education’s published cost‑per‑pupil figures are calculated from actual expenditures and are not a simple division of a proposed budget by enrollment. Molly O’Keefe, SAU/CFO, told the meeting that the DOE calculation “is based off of actual expenditures. It is not budget,” and that the state calculation excludes certain items such as capital outlays and food‑service revenues, so direct comparisons can be misleading.

Board members also said special‑education obligations and required paraprofessional assignments drive costs that cannot be reduced without changing students’ services. The board presented steps that have reduced special‑education costs — including layered supports (MTSS) and early interventions — and said one full‑time classroom teacher was reduced for the current year to align staffing with enrollment.

The amendment was seconded and put to a voice/green‑card count; the meeting recorded a green‑card tally of “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6” in favor but ultimately the motion failed and Article 1 was left on the warrant as posted. The board recommended the higher, $4,010,428 budget.

Next steps: Article 1 will appear on the official town ballot for voter decision on March 10. The district also moved related warrant articles (Article 2: contribution up to $50,000 to a special‑education capital reserve fund; Article 3: contribution up to $25,000 to the school maintenance expendable trust) to the ballot as read during the session.