With the failure of Lewiston school’s $130 million proposed 2027 budget last week, the school committee considered further reductions Monday night, including the elimination of several more positions.

The budget failed by 371 votes, with a majority of voters indicating the budget was “too high.”

Superintendent Jake Langlais presented $1.16 million in possible reductions Monday, which the school committee approved in a 7-1 vote after discussion about the positions proposed for elimination.

Janet Beaudoin, representing Ward 2, was the only committee member who voted against the budget cut.

The new proposed budget is $128,461,846, a 9% increase over current spending.

If approved, it would represent a 4.4% increase to what the city must raise in revenue, down from 8.1% in the previously proposed budget.

Langlais will present the updated budget to the City Council Tuesday night at 7 p.m. at Lewiston City Hall on 27 Pine St. It marks one of two budget presentations the superintendent is required to make to the council before the public votes on the budget.

The next budget referendum will be held June 9, when primary elections will also be held.

THE REDUCTIONS

In next year’s proposed budget are increases that are out of the control of the school committee and superintendent, including special education costs that are state mandated, salaries that were bargained, and non-negotiable insurance rates.

The special education department is up $5.04 million, the transportation department is up $2.5 million for contract changes, utilities are up $742,500, workers compensation insurance is up $892,980, and teacher salaries are up $4.1 million from collective bargaining agreements.

The $1.16 million in further reductions includes eliminating two positions in the special education department, a vacant multilingual coach, an education technician, and a support staff member at Lewiston Regional Technical Center who serves the Auburn students.

Other reductions are in specific departments where the superintendent could find cost savings, such as choosing not to purchase new technology software and pushing back facility repairs. Further reductions were found in the workers compensation insurance through selecting a new insurance plan.

Members of the school committee were concerned about losing the special education department positions and the multilingual coach.

Beaudoin voted against the budget because of the elimination of the special education positions, saying that the needs of students and number of students who need the services goes up each year.

“I can’t in good conscience vote for this,” Beaudoin said. “I understand they could survive without this, but what does it mean for them? They all work really, really hard.”

A majority of the school committee members were weary about eliminating the multilingual coach. Around 42 languages are spoken in the Lewiston schools by at least 2,000 of the district’s 5,032 students.

Langlais said the person who holds the positions is retiring and at the same time, multilingual students are performing well on access tests, which made some of the committee members feel better about the superintendent’s recommendation to cut the position.

“This is something we need and are hesitant about, but can find a way to work through it,” Langlais said.

COMMUNITY INPUT

Ronnie Parity, a Lewiston resident who said she voted against the budget earlier this month, did so because of what older residents in the community are going through.

Parity was one of the five people who spoke at Monday night’s public input session and the only one who said she voted the budget down.

“I’ve supported Lewiston Public Schools for 30 years. But you need to start looking at what we, as the seniors, are going through,” Parity said.

The other four people who spoke were in support of the budget and worried about how eliminating positions will affect student learning.

Krista St. Cyr currently serves as a multilingual coach in the district. She said the school district cannot afford to lose any more staff beyond the cuts that were put forth in the original budget proposal.

“We cannot afford to lose any more staff who work with students, and further cuts will hurt students,” she said. “There is no more capacity to. Every time we cut, something has an impact. Every cut means more work for other people and less for our students.”