Agenda Review of Process to Date Key Terms in the Withdrawal - - PDF document

agenda
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Agenda Review of Process to Date Key Terms in the Withdrawal - - PDF document

Public Hearing for Withdrawal from RSU 50 & Reorganization Plan for the New RSU Andrew Kaye Committee Member from Mount Chase Agenda Review of Process to Date Key Terms in the Withdrawal Agreement Key Terms in the Reorganization


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Public Hearing for Withdrawal from RSU 50 & Reorganization Plan for the New RSU

Andrew Kaye Committee Member from Mount Chase

Agenda

  • Review of Process to Date
  • Key Terms in the Withdrawal Agreement
  • Key Terms in the Reorganization Plan
  • Projected Cost & Tax Impacts
  • Questions & Answers
slide-2
SLIDE 2

The Process

How did we get here?

June 2015 June 2016 Votes to Begin Withdrawal Process July/August 2016 Established Withdrawal Committees and Initial Meetings September 2016 Initial Joint Committee Meeting…Four towns agreed to negotiate jointly September - December 2016 Weekly meetings, preparation, research, planning, etc. January 2017 Initial Negotiation Meeting April 2017 Reorganization Planning Committees Formed June 2017 Negotiations Completed & Final Withdrawal Agreement Submitted June 2017 Reorganization Plan Completed and Approved August 2017 Agreement Approved by

  • Dept. of Education

October 2017 Public Hearings Prior to Referendum Vote

Two Interdependent Agreements:

Plan to Reorganize the Municipalities of Patten, Sherman, Stacyville & Mount Chase into a new Regional School Unit Dated: June 29, 2017 Submitted to the Commissioner of Education for the State of Maine by the Reorganization Planning Committee, comprised of:

For Sherman: Jeffery C. Packard Steve Gould Stuart Kelley Nicole Mitchell John Qualey Philip Knowles For Mount Chase: Linda Craig Rhoda Houtz Terry Thurston-Hill Andrew Kaye Jon Ellis For Patten: Richard Schmidt III Leslie Gardner Alicia McNally For Stacyville: Brian McQuarie Desiree E. Harrison Heidi L. Lake David Pratt !1 RSU 50 and the Town of Mount Chase Withdrawal Agreement Final Dra>

Withdrawal Agreement Between RSU 50 and the Town of Mount Chase Withdrawal Committee This Agreement dated as of , 2017 by and between RSU 50, the Maine regional school unit comprised of the municipalities of Crystal, Dyer Brook, Hersey, Island Falls, Merrill, Moro Plantation, Mount Chase, Oakfield, Patten, Sherman, Smyrna and Stacyville (hereinafter “RSU 50”) and the Town of Mount Chase Withdrawal Committee, a duly appointed municipal withdrawal committee for the Town of Mount Chase (hereinafter “Mount Chase”) organized in accordance with 20-A M.R.S. §1466(4)(A).

  • A. Purposes:
The purposes of this Agreement are: 1. In accordance with 20-A M.R.S. §1466(4)(A), to provide for the timely and orderly withdrawal of Mount Chase from RSU 50 contingent upon the concurrent withdrawal
  • f Sherman, Patten and Stacyville (collectively, including Mount Chase, the
“Withdrawing Municipalities”) and further contingent on the formation of a new regional school unit (the “New RSU”) by, at a minimum, the four Withdrawing Municipalities by the relevant Effective Date specified in Section B, infra. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “New RSU” shall mean a new regional school unit that includes all of the Withdrawing Municipalities; 2. To provide educational continuity for all students residing in the Withdrawing Municipalities; and 3. To allocate RSU 50’s financial and contractual obligations, and its assets, between RSU 50 and the New RSU as of the Effective Date of the Withdrawing Municipalities’ withdrawal, in a manner that fairly takes into account the continuing educational needs of students and the continuity of educational programs.
  • B. Withdrawal:
Pursuant to 20-A M.R.S. §1466, Mount Chase shall withdraw from RSU 50 and become part
  • f a new regional school unit that shall include all of the Withdrawing Municipalities. This
Agreement will not become effective unless the towns of Mount Chase, Patten, Sherman, and Stacyville all approve a reorganization plan and vote in favor of withdrawal. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be June 30, 2018 (the “Effective Date”). The RSU 50 Board shall take no action to close any RSU 50 school prior to the Effective Date. Subject to approval of withdrawal from RSU 50 by each of the Withdrawing Municipalities by referendum votes that meet the requirements of 20-A M.R.S. §1466(9), and subject to the formation of a new regional school unit as of the Effective Date, Mount Chase will become a member of the New RSU on the Effective Date.
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms

  • Effective Date: June 30, 2018
  • Contingency: Each of the four towns’ withdrawal

agreements will only be effective if all four towns vote to withdraw from RSU 50 and to form the New RSU. The withdrawal and the formation of the New RSU will only become effective if ALL FOUR towns vote favorably on BOTH questions in November. Should this vote fail the four towns will remain in RSU 50. Moro’s or Hersey’s withdrawal decision is not dependent upon the other four towns.

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms Assets

  • Buildings & Land
  • Personal Property
  • Buses & Vehicles
  • Central Office/Other Equipment
  • Grants & Trusts
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms Assets (Fund Balances)

  • Total Year-End Fund Balances Projected at ~ $1.1 Million
  • Spring 2018: $200,000 (representing the initial contribution by

MSAD 25 when RSU 50 was formed)

  • New RSU will receive 41.17% of the undesignated fund balances

(after deducting $400,000 representing the initial contributions from MSAD 25 and CSD 9)

  • July 1, 2018: 50% of this amount (~ $140,000) will be paid

based on an estimate of the final undesignated fund balance.

  • The remainder (~ $140,000) of the fund balances due to the

New RSU will be calculated after the audit has been completed (usually in November).

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms Continuity/Tuitioned Students

  • Students residing in the

withdrawing towns but attending Southern Aroostook shall have the right to continue attending Southern Aroostook.

  • Students from the remaining

towns attending Katahdin schools shall have the right to continue attending Katahdin schools.

  • Tuition for these students at the

state tuition rate (plus any special education costs required)

Inter-Region Enrollment (as of April 2017)

Attending Katahdin Attending SACS

Moro 2 Hersey 5 2 Silver Ridge 12 Benedicta 12 2 Houlton 1 Island Falls 2 Crystal 6 Oakfield 1 Dyer Brook 1

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms Shared Staff/Services

  • RSU 50 and the New RSU intend to enter into a multi-year,

reciprocal “Interlocal Agreement” to maintain continuity of services currently shared between the schools

  • Fourteen positions/roles have been identified
  • The final list of shared positions and their allocation of time

and costs will be incorporated into an Interlocal Agreement to be negotiated prior to the Effective Date

  • The boards of directors of the two RSUs will form a Shared

Services Committee to administer the Interlocal Agreement

Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms Other Important Terms

  • Debt Servicing & Liabilities
  • Transportation
  • Financial Commitments
  • Staff & Collective Bargaining Agreements
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Reorganization Plan An Imperfect Document

  • The “Reorganization Plan” process was designed

to facilitate the consolidation of school districts — NOT the creation of a new school district.

  • The format and sections are pre-set by statute and

not especially well suited to our specific needs.

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms School Board

  • Limited options were available for the school board structure

and voting apportionment

  • Eight School Board Members
  • Two board members from each town
  • Two-Year Terms (initial board members will have one one-

year and one two-year term from each town)

  • Weighted voting system based on population of the municipality

Member Municipality Population Board Members Votes Per Member Patten 994 2 497 Sherman 805 2 403 Stacyville 389 2 195 Mount Chase 198 2 99

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Cost Sharing Formula

  • Cost sharing formula

is only used to calculate each town’s share of the local additional.

  • The larger portion of

each town’s contribution is dictated by the state based on assessed value.

Projected Income (2018/9) Other 7% Tuition 6% Local Additional 13% Required Match 22% State Allocation 51%

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Cost Sharing Formula

  • The assessed property values are used to calculate the required match

from the state (and, in RSU 50, the local additional).

  • The actual assessed values are imperfect as they depend on two

factors:

  • The State assessor’s reviews of all property sales in regard to how

the sale price compares with Town assessed value, and

  • The Town Assessor values property based on the last completed

valuation of the entire Town.

  • In Patten's case, property assessments have not been revalued since
  • 1985. This has led to a valuation nearly equal to that of Mount Chase

and much less than the Town of Sherman.

  • The committee attempted to balance this distortion while expecting

that Patten's eventual revaluation efforts would help rectify some of these disparities.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Cost Sharing Formula

  • Initially, the committee had decided upon a formula which

balances the property value, population and enrollment from each town (⅓ each) which would balance other factors assuming the valuation of each town is accurate.

  • Given Patten’s decision in April not to proceed with revaluation,

the committee decided upon a fixed percentage basis for calculating the local additional contribution. Once these valuations are equalized and/or other significant changes throughout the communities occur, this can be revisited.

  • The adjustment occurs over a two year period as follows:

Town 2018/19 2019/20 Patten 31.5% 35.0% Sherman 31.0% 30.0% Stacyville 14.5% 15.0% Mount Chase 23.0% 20.0%

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms “Cost Savings Analysis”

  • The section of the Reorganization Plan designated for

“Cost Savings Analysis” was used to present some of the key assumptions used in developing a financial projection for the New RSU.

  • The financial projections are not binding, and only serve

as a basis/recommendation for the new board in its duty to develop the budget.

  • The Reorganization Planning Committee felt it was

imperative to present a realistic but conservative financial projection which would avoid unpleasant surprises when the board prepares the actual first year budget.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Financial Projections

  • Initials basis — RSU 50 current year budget
  • Some adjustments for some inappropriate allocations

contained in the RSU 50 budget.

  • The details of every shared cost line item were

analyzed to determine an appropriate division of these costs.

  • Excluding the assumptions inherent in RSU 50’s budget,

there are about 70 assumption the committee made to develop the financial projections for the New RSU.

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Key Financial Assumptions

  • Staffing
  • With the exception of System Admin, there are no staffing

changes in the assumptions. We have assumed we can drastically reduce System Admin costs by eliminating the Superintendent, his secretary and associated overheads.

  • The assumption is that the Principle will also serve as

Superintendent.

  • Additional funds were budgeted for an Accountant

(“business manager”).

  • The shared administrative and teaching staff in the

withdrawal agreement are assumed to all be shared equally with RSU 50

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Key Financial Assumptions

  • Operating Costs
  • To correct for the degradation of curriculum and materials over the past

five years, an additional $50,000 in year one and $100,000 in year two has been added for reinvestment.

  • One new bus lease every three years.
  • The current budget reduced capital expenditures to $100K ($50K in

each school). This is well below the historical norm so we have doubled this amount in the financial projections.

  • Over 15% of our students will be tuitioned by independent towns, RSU

50 or the state. The New RSU will not be accountable for any special ed costs associated with these students. This will certainly impact special ed costs, but as we could not determine any reasonable basis to calculate this, we have excluded any significant cost savings.

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Key Financial Assumptions

  • Revenue
  • Nearly all the tuition revenue in RSU 50 is generated by Katahdin.

Due to the significance of this for our new district, we have projected this in detail…but discount this somewhat to be conservative.

  • We assume the non-withdrawing towns (except Moro and Hersey)

will no longer send new students to Katahdin.

  • We used a three year historical trend to determine growth rates of

state allocations and required local match.

  • The financial projections on the following page differ slightly from those

in the first Reorganization Plan. This reflects the revised state allocations which were provided after the first Reorganization Plan had been completed.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Adjusted Financial Projections

RSU 89 Income Statement Summary

2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Income State Allocation $ 2,513,000 $ 2,584,000 $ 2,589,000 $ 2,595,000 $ 2,601,000 Local Required Match 1,093,000 1,124,000 1,139,000 1,155,000 1,170,000 Local Additional 634,000 645,000 744,000 688,000 752,000 Tuition 317,000 335,000 276,000 353,000 312,000 Other Income 52,000 53,000 54,000 55,000 56,000 Carry Forward 284,000 284,000 284,000 284,000 284,000 Total Income $ 4,893,000 $ 5,025,000 $ 5,086,000 $ 5,130,000 $ 5,175,000 Expenses Regular Instruction $ 1,769,000 $ 1,867,000 $ 1,876,000 $ 1,885,000 $ 1,894,000 Special Education 846,000 840,000 834,000 838,000 842,000 Career & Technical 196,000 201,000 206,000 211,000 216,000 Other Instruction 149,000 150,000 151,000 152,000 153,000 Student & Staff Support 361,000 366,000 371,000 377,000 383,000 System Administration 170,000 171,000 172,000 173,000 174,000 School Administration 311,000 323,000 325,000 327,000 329,000 Transportation 370,000 376,000 410,000 416,000 422,000 Facilities Maintenance 674,000 684,000 694,000 704,000 715,000 Other Expenses 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 Adult Education 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Total Expense $ 4,893,000 $ 5,025,000 $ 5,086,000 $ 5,130,000 $ 5,175,000

These are the key numbers with tax implications….

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms What will this cost the towns?

Projected Splits for 2018/9 - Continue Under RSU 50 Patten Sherman Stacyville

  • Mt. Chase

Total Local Match Required $ 307,518 $ 345,283 $ 148,331 $ 245,329 $ 1,046,461 Local Share of Adult Ed 4,766 5,161 2,264 4,419 16,610 Local Additional 166,017 179,799 78,874 153,931 578,621 Total Education Funding $ 478,301 $ 530,243 $ 229,469 $ 403,679 $ 1,641,692 Percentage of Total 29% 32% 14% 25% 100% Projected Splits for 2018/9 - Withdraw and Form New RSU 89 Patten Sherman Stacyville

  • Mt. Chase

Total Local Match Required $ 318,905 $ 358,065 $ 153,838 $ 262,512 $ 1,093,320 Local Share of Adult Ed 9,450 9,300 4,350 6,900 30,000 Local Additional 190,282 187,262 87,590 138,936 604,070 Total Education Funding $ 518,637 $ 554,627 $ 245,778 $ 408,348 $ 1,727,390 Percentage of Total 30% 32% 14% 24% 100%

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms 2018/19 vs. 2019/20

Projected Splits for 2019/20

Patten Sherman Stacyville

  • Mt. Chase

Total Local Match Required $ 323,321 $ 363,025 $ 155,968 $ 266,147 $ 1,108,461 Local Share of Adult Ed 10,500 9,000 4,500 6,000 30,000 Local Additional 215,258 184,507 92,253 123,005 615,023 Total Education Funding $ 549,079 $ 556,532 $ 252,721 $ 395,152 $ 1,753,484 Percentage of Total 31% 32% 14% 23% 100%

Projected Splits for 2018/19

Patten Sherman Stacyville

  • Mt. Chase

Total Local Match Required $ 318,905 $ 358,065 $ 153,838 $ 262,512 $ 1,093,320 Local Share of Adult Ed 9,450 9,300 4,350 6,900 30,000 Local Additional 190,282 187,262 87,590 138,936 604,070 Total Education Funding $ 518,637 $ 554,627 $ 245,778 $ 408,348 $ 1,727,390 Percentage of Total 30% 32% 14% 24% 100%

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Transition Plan

  • Reorganization Planning Committee meets to electing an interim

secretary and set a date for the election of the initial Board of Directors of the unit (November/December)

  • Towns elect a Board of Directors (December)
  • Initial Board of Directors tasks to include (January/February)
  • Establish interim rules of procedure
  • Elect interim officers
  • Select a superintendent of schools
  • Board of Directors begin the process for developing a proposed

budget and recommend a budget for consideration by the voters (February/March)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Transition Costs & Financing

  • The costs during this transitional period (before the July 1

effective date) are projected at ~$40,000.

  • The $200,000 initial payment from RSU 50 would obviously be

sufficient, however, the agreement authorizes the Board of Directors to obtain other available financing if needed.

  • The second payment (estimated at ~$140,000) would be

received in July.

  • The final payment (estimated at ~$140,000) from RSU 50 would

not occur until the audit is complete (usually November). Therefore, there is a small chance that short-term financing could be needed prior to receipt of the final payment.

Referendum Wording

  • Do you favor the withdrawal of the Town of (Mount

Chase/Patten/Sherman/Stacyville) from Regional School Unit 50 subject to the terms and conditions

  • f the withdrawal agreement dated June 15, 2017?
  • In the event Question #1 is approved, do you favor

approving the school administrative reorganization plan prepared by the Reorganization Planning Committee to reorganize the Towns of Patten, Stacyville, Sherman, and Mount Chase into a regional school unit, with an effective date of July 1, 2018?