MSAD 60 approves FY27 budget after rejecting special‑education cut and adding funds for bus drivers

MSAD 60 voters completed a line‑by‑line budget hearing on May 7, approving the district’s fiscal year 2027 spending package after contentious debate over special‑education and transportation funding.

The meeting opened with administrators presenting district priorities that informed the budget: an expansion of pre‑K (stated capacity of 96 seats), continuation and expansion of literacy programs, supports for students with disabilities, and a five‑year facilities plan. The school board’s initially presented aggregate figure was $51,999,009; during article‑level actions the moderator read an amended total for the overall budget at $52,209,009.

A proposed amendment to Article 2 would have reduced the special‑education appropriation by $1,200,000 (sponsored from the floor). Speakers — including public commenters and district special‑education leadership — warned that such a cut would force staff reductions and risk violating students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP) entitlements. The district explained it plans to budget two IEP coordinator roles next year (one full‑time, one split). After debate and a counted vote the amendment failed and Article 2 was adopted as recommended.

Separately, the assembly approved an amendment to the transportation article to add $300,000 targeted to bus driver pay (the stated purpose: to create a competitive $30–$35/hour scale to address driver shortages). That amendment passed after town‑by‑town tallies reported on the floor (Yes 169, No 118). Other articles authorizing career‑and‑technical education, facilities maintenance, school administration, and program funds were read and approved in sequence. The moderator read Article 14 as amended to $52,209,009 and called votes on the remaining articles, which the assembly passed by voice and recorded counts where reported.

District staff present to answer questions included business manager Denise Van Campen and assistant superintendent Susan Austin; consultant Greg Mann and program directors also responded to specific line‑item queries about hardware, lease schedules, grants, and staffing. Several residents pressed administrators for more granular figures on hardware leases, literacy coach positions, substitute pay and overtime, and potential litigation exposure if required services were not funded.

The hearing closed after the final article votes and moderator confirmation of passed motions. Where counts were provided in the transcript they were included in the meeting record; many article votes were conducted by raised cards and town counts per the moderator’s instructions.