FARMINGTON – Mt. Blue Regional School District directors voted to utilize $723,000 in additional state funds to hold property tax assessment increases associated with the $33.7 million proposed budget to a zero percent increase at Thursday’s meeting. The funds would also be used to pay for two social workers, a student services coordinator and to reduce the amount of debt the district would assume via a previously-approved bond project.
The school board set a new proposed budget on June 29, approving a $33,552,748 budget. That represents $344,524 reduction from the budget voted down at the validation referendum on June 6, with 1,457 votes were cast in favor and 1,641 votes cast in opposition.
In a narrow decision decided by a single weighted vote, directors removed several items added near the end of the previous budget process. These included part-time American Sign Language, science and pre-Engineering teaching positions, a student services position at Foster Technology Center, $15,000 for technology infrastructure improvements and, perhaps most controversially, the removal of the social worker positions. Those positions had been added to provide services for regular instruction students, addressing issues such as social and behavioral issues, potential abuse and neglect cases and suicide referrals.
In the early morning hours of July 4, Gov. Paul LePage signed the new biennial budget, approving $7.1 billion in expenditures and ending the brief state shutdown. The new budget includes $162 million in additional funds for education, providing a little more than $48 million for the 2017-18 school year and $113 million for 2018-19. For MBRSD, that budget will represent an increase in state subsidy of $729,954 above the amount proposed by LePage’s budget back in March.
On Thursday, the board met to make recommendations for the additional $729,954 in state subsidy. By law, half of the funds must be used for property tax relief; the board opted to set $13,000 more toward that purpose in order to hit a zero percent adjustment to town assessments, as calculated across the entire district. Director Irving Faunce of Wilton made the motion to utilize $378,165 to go toward reducing the property tax assessment impact of the budget. The directors present for the special meeting: Director Craig Stickney of Chesterville, Director Iris Silverstein of Farmington, Director Tami Labul of Farmington, Director Robert Patterson of Industry, Director Jennifer Pooler of New Sharon, Chair Jennifer Zweig-Hebert of Starks, Director Debbie Smith of Weld, Director Angela LeClair of Wilton and Director Cherieann Harrison of Wilton were all in favor. Director Scott Erb of Farmington, Director Ryan Morgan of Farmington, Director Doug Dunlap of Farmington, Director Richard Hargreaves of New Vineyard, Director Lidie Robbins of Vienna and Director Betsey Hyde of Temple were not present for the special board meeting.
The zero percent tax assessment increase represents the combined contributions of every town if the budget passes as recommended. Specifically, the town of Chesterville would see a $23,370 increase as compared to the previous fiscal year, the town of Farmington would see an $8,862 decrease, the town of Industry would see a $29,038 increase, New Sharon would see a $4,571 decrease, New Vineyard would see a $10,439 increase, Starks would see a $29,830 increase, Temple would see a $12,124 decrease, Vienna would see a $748 increase, Weld would see a $10,236 decrease and Wilton would see a $57,637 decrease. The combined adjustments would equal zero, down from the combined $378,165 increase that would have occurred if the school budget had passed as proposed under the governor’s original state budget.
Another $165,431 of the additional state subsidy was approved for capital projects. This will replace some of the $318,000-worth of projects that MBRSD town residents approved to be bonded at the June vote, leaving the district with a need to borrow only $152,000 to complete the project list.
Several directors and a few residents speaking publicly at the meeting pushed to have the projects covered through the additional state funds, to spare the district assuming more debt. Stickney advised focusing on the list of school projects as the top priority and delay adding new positions with extra funds. Harrison, while supporting avoiding some of the assumed debt, said that the district had priorities beyond the building projects.
“It’s not just the buildings, it’s the children inside the buildings,” Harrison said, advocating to fund the social worker positions.
Directors supported increasing a position split between the Mt. Blue High School and Foster Technology Center, as a combined guidance counselor/Student Services Coordinator, to two, full-time positions at the total cost of $50,340. That consolidation was attempted a year ago and reportedly hasn’t worked; Superintendent Tom Ward listed that as the top priority out of the positions cut a few weeks ago. The vote to fund that position was nearly unanimous, with Stickney and Pooler opposed.
Directors also supported adding back in two social worker positions at the cost of $136,018. Those positions would be split between Wilton, New Sharon and Farmington schools, as well as an extra half position for Mt. Blue Middle School, where the district sees particular need. Directors Silverstein, Labul, Faunce, Zweig-Hebert, Smith, LeClair and Harrison were in favor; Directors Stickney, Pooler and Patterson were opposed.
“If it’s not dealt with here,” LeClair said of the issues the social workers would address within the regular instruction student population, “it’s just going to explode somewhere else.”
Harrison also supported adding back the part-time American Sign Language teacher, which failed by a vote of 290 to 358. Directors Smith, Labul, LeClair, Zweig-Hebert and Harrison were in favor; Directors Stickney, Pooler, Silverstein, Faunce and Patterson were opposed. She made a motion to add back in a part-time Science teacher, but that failed to garner a second.
The additional funds will impact three expenditure articles at the budget meeting on July 25 at 7 p.m. at the Mt. Blue Campus (as well as other articles that set revenue later in the warrant). The school project funding will increase Article 9: Facilities Maintenance by the aforementioned $165,431, while the $136,018 budgeted for social workers would fall under Article 5: Student and Staff Support. The $50,340 cost of the Student Services Coordinator/guidance counselor separation would be split between Article 5 and Article 3: Career and Technical Education, $25,170 in each cost center.
Ward noted that the district has also requested that the state pick up the reimbursement of the Student Services Coordinator for Foster Tech quicker than the typical, 2-year delay due to the position only being vacant for a single year. The state reimburses Foster Tech expenditures at slightly above 100 percent.
In total, the new budget would be $33,904,537 with the additional state money.
The July 25 meeting will allow residents to set the budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year. On Aug. 3, voters will choose to either validate the budget set at the meeting or reject it, effectively restarting the process.
[Editor’s Note: We have made some minor updates and a correction to this article. We’ve corrected Director Pooler’s vote on the Student Services Coordinator – she was opposed – and we’ve added the cost breakdown of the coordinator position between Articles 3 & 5, as well as the new, total budget number.]
I know there are plenty of pencil sharpeners in the school. I think we need to sharpen our pencil some more.
How will the increase in the minimum wage change the budget moving forward? From what I understand the entire hourly pay scale is shifting to accommodate increases at the bottom (not something that most businesses in Maine will be doing) and we’ll be realizing these changes in the near future. I suspect there will continue to be hard decisions to make moving forward. I would have preferred to see the additional money go toward debt servicing at this time. Although I appreciate that the state is finally funding what the taxpayers voted for years ago, I do believe that in our district that it helped them to avoid making the hard decisions that many voters were asking for. We will still be voting no.
Some people are never happy.
Wow! $136,018 for 2 social worker positions? That’s a LOT of money.
(speaking as a therapist working in a mental health center)
I agree with you “Reality”…….and they never will be!!!
Kerry- That is not their direct salary. There are additional expenses outside of salary when you hire an employee.
As an educated person, I would ask that you not be dramatic with your responses, in an attempt to elicit a reaction from the public.
Wilton Mom: Reducing debt service was addressed at last nights board meeting. Directors approved $165,431 to pay for projects during this next year, instead of using the full bond issue recently approved. The $165,431 will be paid as the work is done, rather than borrowed, and paid in upcoming years. Voters of the District had approved to use up to $318,000 in bond money. Now that figure has been reduced to about $152,000, reducing debt commitments for future years by the $165,431 and the interest on the $165,431.
Yes, Summarizing the article, I also read the article and understood the contents. It seems foolish to me that we didn’t use the additional money from the state to avoid taking out the bond entirely. I guess that wasn’t readily apparent in my comment. If someone is able to comment on the changes in the hourly pay scale then I think this information would be important for the public. My concern is that this is going to be brought up in coming years as a new catastrophic expense that we have to deal with…when really this is known already and we could start preparing accordingly.
Wilton Mom- The towns voted on and approved the bond. That was already set.
The board reduced the amount of the bond last night and also was able to address the on going growing needs of a school district in Western Maine. They did their job effectively, efficiently, and recognized everyone’s concerns. The town assessments are staying at zero. If you aren’t being obstinate, mulish and unbending because you don’t want to pay more, is it just because you don’t want anyone else to have the ability to benefit?
Some people are never happy.
Wilton Mom: Yours may be a great question to ask one of your board members directly. The Board discussion was quite detailed on trying to balance needs and ability to pay. I think that is why they went part way by getting the local property tax assessments to an overall 0% increase, covering about half of the approved bond with state revenue so as to reduce debt payment, and to fund several positions of staff who deal directly with supporting individual students.
Original PROPOSED BUDGET as presented on MAY 31 at MT. BLUE AUDITORIUM for 2017-2018 school year: $33,897,272, an increase of$1,148,163. After the voting down of the budget at the referendum validation, the RSU ADMINISTRATION and BOARD made adjustments and came up with a different budget for the taxpayers to ponder: $33,552,748 an increase of $803,639. After receiving extra money from the state,and applying it to alleviate the local tax share, pay some to fund capital improvements which reduces the bond and amount to be borrowed for such, and putting positions/programs back into the budget that had been cut to make the before mentioned budget adjustment,the new proposed budget is: $33,904,537, an increase of $1,155,428 over the 2016-2017 school year. HOW many times do we have to vote NO ? SEEMS like we’re on a roller coaster. Bigger numbers than we started with, is this all real?
Buckshot- Well that seems misleading. The bond was approved, with the first vote. And, there has been only one other public vote this year.
The town’s have zero percent assessment increase.
RSU 9 is being fiscally conservative and responsible.
Just because you can be an obstructionist, doesn’t mean you should be.
Some people are never happy.
Reality….get Real
Maineiac-. I understand that some people struggle with the truth.
None of what I said is inaccurate or inflammatory.
Some people are never happy.
All figures accurate in my comment, taken from RSU BUDGET report. WHAT’S your problem? Is the TRUTH hurting? REALITY, look down the road at the next few years’ budgets and projected tax increases. AND what happens when the state cuts back again!!!
People use a Buckshot when they struggle with inaccuracy.
The State increased their school funding this year and in the future budget because they recognize the additional costs schools are incurring due to State and Federal Regulations. With that funding, the RSU 9 school board was able to create a budget with zero percent assessment change and put down money on voter approved debt services.
Some people are never happy.
Read article 14 and you’ll see that we exceed what the state’s Essential Programs and Services requires by $1,635,961.39. Seems to me we’re complying with the state’s mandates and then some!
For the second year in a row, RSU 9 is proposing a budget with a 0% increase in local assessments across all of the towns. Some assessments will go up a bit, some will go down a bit, however RSU 9 is not asking for additional local funds. (So this means we will have three years in a row with the same property tax contribution from across all RSU 9 property owners)
Early in the budget season, Dr Ward had said the amount of state aid was likely to increase, and the goal for the final budget, after the state set actual funding amounts was a 0%increase in local property assessment needs. Looks to me like RSU 9 will meet that goal with the current proposed budget.
The Maine State budget has been approved, school funding was increased, and the Board arrived at a recommended budget with a Zero increase in funding from local towns.
Our Board of Directors and Administration started working on the budget during the cold winter months, working to balance student needs, classroom needs, building needs and taxpayer needs. Their task was not easy, and was often intense in trying to work out the best compromise.
I believe they have worked out a budget that is a good balance of funding available, vs needs. I have attended many of the budget meetings and seen forceful debates throughout the winter, spring and summer months.
Voting Yes for the proposed budget is what I will be doing, and seeing the overall local property tax funding needed be about the same as the previous two years is a good step for our own household budget.
Just think, an overall zero increase in property tax assessment across all towns for the last two years, making for three years in a row of the same funding level from all towns combined…..
@ Matt Allen;
I understand you are a math teacher. How can you justify the fact that the budget being presented this time is over 100,000 dollars more than was defeated last vote at referendum. Must be the new math, it certainly has me confused. More money given, more spending, more base budget for the next how many years? Realize that one legislature is not bound by the next. What happens when we don’t receive this extra money? Layoffs, and a lot of them, in order to make a budget sustainable. Got to love the new math!
C warren- Bold statement. It’s sad that you can’t use facts in it. Go check your last referendum numbers again vs. current proposed budget.
Did you know the board meetings are recorded for future public viewing? You may want to watch them again before making any more comments. I would hate for you to continue to come across as uninformed.
Some people are never happy.
Math is not new, new math is no longer new. Our state coming closer to funding at 55% for the entire state is new again.
The additional funding by the state came in time to support many districts. One of the rules was to put at least half of the funding in place to reduce property taxes by each district. RSU 9 did reduce the property tax needs by half of the new funding. RSU 9 also reduced our future debt service with about half of the remaining added funds, which reduces future local funding requirements on an approved bond.
Combined, the Board committed $378,165 to reduce property taxes, this year, and $168,431 to reduce an approved bond expense for future years, for a total of $546,596 of the new state funding used to reduce this year, and future year taxes. I believe the Board’s commitment to reduce taxes by this amount should be celebrated, if your goal is to reduce costs.
When increasing funding the folks in Augusta also wanted new funding to go to support students. RSU 9 put the remaining new funding where they believed the new funding may have the strongest positive impact with individual students.
Funding distribution for property tax reductions, for this year and future years: $546,596
Funding to support our students directly: $176,404.
I believe the Board took on another difficult job, and worked it through to a reasonable set of decisions.
DON’T forget the amount of increase after the referendum which still remains intact at $803,639. This much of an increase every year is what the original conflict was and still is about. If the budget remains unchanged after the July 25 Budget Meeting, the voters at referendum on August 3rd will again vote it down.Too bad about the Nancy Porter thing, but it sure is going to rally the “NO” voters. By the way, that increase as it will appear on the amended BUDGET REVIEW for next Tuesday’s Budget Meeting will be $1,155,428 not $803,639 as it appears on the “green sheet”.
I wonder where all the state money comes from “da”. Not the tax increase on earnings over $200 k that the was voted in and appealed by our Repensentives that we send to Augusta.So the budget increases over a million as Dr.Tom wanted.
Buckshot- Can you admit the new proposed budget has a zero percent tax assessment increase, and the school board has begun paying down on voter approved debt?
Some people are never happy.