Brunswick Town Council Special Budget Public Hearing - April 27, 2026

The Brunswick Town Council held a special public hearing on Monday, April 27, 2026, to receive public comment on the proposed 2026-2027 municipal budget and the 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The manager’s proposed budget would produce a 5.52% increase in the property tax rate, driven largely by school department growth and a decline in state revenue sharing. The school board presented a budget with a 6.03% expenditure increase that was reduced through $2 million in cuts, including elimination of eight full-time positions. No formal council action was taken; discussion will continue at the May 4th regular meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kate Kallachinen (Brunswick resident, parent, public school teacher): Expressed strong support for the school budget as presented, urging no further cuts. Praised the music department’s recent festival success.
• Mike Factor (Brunswick resident, bus driver, union president): Opposed further reductions, stating that additional cuts would result in layoffs of people who care about children. Urged acceptance of the school department budget.
• Greta Warren (Brunswick resident, parent): Voiced concern about cuts, criticized the decision to use $123,000 in one-time bridge funding for tax relief rather than student services. Urged acceptance of the budget as proposed.
• Chris Thacker (47-year Brunswick resident): Opposed any tax increase, citing Maine’s low GDP per capita, high tax burden, shrinking workforce, high electricity costs, and declining student test scores. Called for a zero percent increase.
• Chris Teal (Brunswick resident, taxpayer, property owner): Echoed Thacker’s opposition, asserting that school administration is “top heavy” and that more money has not improved performance. Demanded cuts.
• Gio Johnson (Brunswick resident, small business owner): Supported the school budget as fair, noting that the school board achieved a modest increase despite cost pressures. Warned that cuts would damage the town’s reputation.
• Andrew Kosak (Brunswick resident, teacher): Opposed further reductions, arguing that salaries and benefits are the main cost drivers and that eliminating positions would harm students. Suggested exploring regional school consolidation or independence.
• Ken Spaulding (Lisbon Falls resident, bus driver for Brunswick): Supported the school budget, emphasizing importance of safe transportation.
• Andrew Lardy (Brunswick resident, parent, former school employee): Urged support for the budget, stating that educators “save lives every day” and that underfunding schools leads to higher future costs.
• Rick Ryan (Bowdoin resident, bus driver): Supported the budget, noting that reductions have already been deep.
• Anna Hicks (Brunswick resident, parent): Expressed pride in Brunswick schools and urged investment in caring adults, opposing further cuts.
• Stephen Comeback (Durham resident, head custodian, bus driver): Described staff resourcefulness and minimal waste; supported the budget as is.
• Nathan Hints (Brunswick resident): Asked council to approve the budget with no more cuts, noting that special education is legally mandated and that last year’s referendum passed with 82% support. Opposed treating special education children as “challenges.”
• Sean Hogan (Brunswick resident): Opposed the school budget, calling the library’s request excessive and criticizing administrative fat. Claimed achievement scores are declining despite a 54.5% budget increase since the superintendent took over. Challenged the accuracy of position reduction claims.
• Ruth Joyce (Brunswick resident, special education director): Defended the budget, arguing the school is not a business and that administrators act as “foremen” removing barriers for teachers. Emphasized the social contract and protective factors for vulnerable students.
• Debbie Bridges (Brunswick resident): Opposed the school budget, asserting too much administrative overhead. Shared personal story of her daughter unable to afford to return to Brunswick. Asked for clarification on the mill rate impact of the $123,000 reduction.
• Jennifer Navarro (Brunswick resident): Raised legal concerns regarding the town’s comprehensive plan being found inconsistent with the Growth Management Act by the Maine Office of Community Affairs (MOCA). Asked for specific clarifications on how this finding is addressed in the budget, what revisions have been made, and what legal risks exist. Suggested rising costs from Tedford and ELL students reflect failed regional planning.

Discussion Items

• Town Manager Hensey presented an overview of the manager’s proposed budget, noting a 5.52% tax rate increase driven by decreased revenue sharing and increased education and county costs. CIP year one includes a bonded fire engine replacement.
• Superintendent Potenziano and Business Manager Tom presented the school board-approved budget: a 6.03% expenditure increase, with $2 million in reductions including eight full-time positions. They highlighted budget drivers: unforeseen special education costs, bus replacement, facilities, Region 10, and contracted services. Revenue side showed a 2.89% tax impact, later revised to 2.70% using an additional $123,224 in state aid (one-time bridge funding). The superintendent recommended using that funding to reduce taxation rather than for services.
• School Board Chair Beth Bisson and Vice Chair Elizabeth Sokolov urged council to accept the budget, noting the board voted unanimously after difficult reductions. They stated any further cuts would erode program quality.
• Council Discussion: Councillor Ellis questioned why school spending growth exceeds 5% annually when inflation and employment compensation index are lower. Superintendent noted special education out-of-district placement costs are unpredictable and rising significantly. Councillor Weems proposed a formal request for information from the town manager and school board on specific actions to close the gap between the current revised 5.33% and a 4% target, prioritizing revenue generation over cuts. Councillor Wilson stated she would not vote for over 4%, citing fixed-income residents. Councillor Ecker supported a 4% target but wanted more time. Councillor Anderson and Teamy favored the proposed budget as is, emphasizing that further cuts would harm services. Councillor Perrell noted that the school’s increase is largely due to unforeseen special education costs, making comparisons difficult. Chair McDonald noted that historically voters have approved budgets by large margins (80% last year). The council agreed to postpone setting a formal rate to the May 4th meeting, with a budget workshop on April 29th.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action taken on the budget or CIP. The public hearing was closed.
• Council will continue deliberations at the regular meeting on Monday, May 4, 2026 where a target tax rate may be set.
• An additional budget workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, April 29, 2026 to examine municipal options.
• The school board will not meet until Thursday, May 7, 2026, meaning any council target set on May 4th would be communicated to the board for their response.
• Councillor Weems’ proposal for a formal information request (RFI) was noted but not adopted; discussion will continue.
• The meeting adjourned unanimously.