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
The Process How did we get here? June 2015 Votes to Begin Reorganization Planning April 2017 June 2016 Withdrawal Process Committees Formed Established Withdrawal Negotiations Completed July/August Committees and Initial June 2017 & Final Withdrawal 2016 Meetings Agreement Submitted Initial Joint Committee September Reorganization Plan Meeting…Four towns June 2017 2016 Completed and Approved agreed to negotiate jointly September - Weekly meetings, Agreement Approved by December preparation, research, August 2017 Dept. of Education 2016 planning, etc. January Initial Negotiation October Public Hearings Prior to 2017 Meeting 2017 Referendum Vote Two Interdependent Agreements: 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 Plan to Reorganize withdrawal committee for the Town of Mount Chase (hereinafter “Mount Chase”) organized in accordance with 20-A M.R.S. §1466(4)(A). the Municipalities of Patten, Sherman, Stacyville & Mount Chase A. Purposes: into a new Regional School Unit 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 Dated: June 29, 2017 withdrawal of Mount Chase from RSU 50 contingent upon the concurrent withdrawal of 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 Submitted to the Commissioner of Education for the State of Maine by the Municipalities by the relevant Effective Date specified in Section B, infra . For the Reorganization Planning Committee, comprised of: 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 For Sherman: For Mount Chase: Municipalities; and Jeffery C. Packard Linda Craig 3. To allocate RSU 50’s financial and contractual obligations, and its assets, between Steve Gould Rhoda Houtz RSU 50 and the New RSU as of the Effective Date of the Withdrawing Stuart Kelley Terry Thurston-Hill Municipalities’ withdrawal, in a manner that fairly takes into account the continuing Nicole Mitchell Andrew Kaye educational needs of students and the continuity of educational programs. John Qualey Jon Ellis Philip Knowles B. Withdrawal: For Stacyville: For Patten: Pursuant to 20-A M.R.S. §1466, Mount Chase shall withdraw from RSU 50 and become part of a new regional school unit that shall include all of the Withdrawing Municipalities. This Brian McQuarie Richard Schmidt III Agreement will not become effective unless the towns of Mount Chase, Patten, Sherman, and Desiree E. Harrison Leslie Gardner Stacyville all approve a reorganization plan and vote in favor of withdrawal. Heidi L. Lake Alicia McNally David Pratt 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. ! 1
Withdrawal Agreement: Key Terms • E ff ective Date: June 30, 2018 • Contingency: Each of the four towns’ withdrawal agreements will only be e ff ective 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 O ffi ce/Other Equipment • Grants & Trusts
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 Inter-Region Enrollment (as of April 2017) withdrawing towns but attending Attending Attending Katahdin SACS Southern Aroostook shall have the right to continue attending Moro 2 0 Southern Aroostook. Hersey 5 2 • Students from the remaining Silver Ridge 12 0 towns attending Katahdin Benedicta 12 2 schools shall have the right to continue attending Katahdin Houlton 1 0 schools. Island Falls 2 • Tuition for these students at the Crystal 6 state tuition rate (plus any Oakfield 1 special education costs required) Dyer Brook 1
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 E ff ective 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 • Sta ff & Collective Bargaining Agreements
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 Population Board Votes Per Municipality Members Member Patten 994 2 497 Sherman 805 2 403 Stacyville 389 2 195 Mount Chase 198 2 99
Reorganization Plan: Key Terms Cost Sharing Formula • Cost sharing formula Projected Income (2018/9) Required Match Local Additional is only used to 22% 13% calculate each town’s share of the local Tuition additional. 6% • The larger portion of Other 7% each town’s contribution is dictated by the state based on assessed State Allocation value. 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 e ff orts would help rectify some of these disparities.
Recommend
More recommend
