001Can you hear me now? Is it on? Yeah. Good evening everyone. Welcome. Uh we're going to get started with the first event of tonight which is um a discussion about our cost sharing committee that we had in RSU. Um, so we're going to start that. That way we can get any questions answered that you guys may have and start at 6:15 for our district budget meeting. How's the mic? Okay. Okay. Uh, so my name is Angela Swinson and I am one of the minet representatives for the school board. I want to start by saying thank you for taking time out of your busy life being available and participating in tonight's events. We as a school board appreciate your involvement and presence as part of our community members and having opportunities like tonight where communication can
002take place in a more relaxed format. Before we hold our district budget meeting, we are going to talk about the RSU16 cost sharing committee, the purpose of it, and the outcome from the decision for which the committee was tasked. I will be giving a brief overview of the entire process and Mary will follow with some more details in the outcome of the committee. The cost sharing committee was a product of the reorganizational plan that was put into place when RSU16 was formed by our three municipalities. Our formation was precipitated by community feedback regarding the cost sharing formula and the weight or portion that each town contributes. At the request of Poland residents, the school board voted in favor to form the cost sharing committee in order to examine the formula that determines how each town
003is charged in funding the additional shared local portion of RSU16's budget. Following the bylaws of the reorganizational plan, it was the school board's duty to support the committee by way of funding and hiring a facilitator. Following candidate search and interviews, the school board voted to hire Susan Bowden to moderate all necessary committee meetings. It was then the responsibility of each town select board to choose the three appointed members to sit on the committee with one member being an active representative of the school board. The members chosen were as follows. For Poland, school board member Joe Parent, Town Select Board Member Steve Robinson and Lisa Albby. For Minina, school board member Angela Swinson, town select board member Britney Heend, and appointed community member Colleen Quint. And for Mechanic Falls, it was school board member Mary Martin,
004select board member Daryl Young, and appointed community member Danielle Luring. As it stands currently, the formula states that cost sharing is 90% town valuation and 10% pupil count. It is this formula the committee was assigned to review and discuss in order that a potential change might occur resulting in a shift of the percentages between valuation and pupil count. The committee met several times in the first few months of this calendar year. During that time, the committee surveyed RSU 16 constituents, compiled and reviewed the survey data from those responses received, discussed multiple ways of addressing the issues derived from the survey input, reviewed local and state demographics, historical data, enrollment numbers, median age, and income of surrounding areas, and home assessment values. The committee also compared cost sharing formulas from other districts that generated thorough and
005in-depth discussion. After deliberating and discussing potential changes, the committee came to an agreement that would result in a change of our current cost sharing formula. Following the reorganization plan, we collaborated on producing the final report that was then shared with community members and town officials. After tonight's public forum, the next step will be a referendum on the June ballot where every town member will have an opportunity to vote on the article outlining the change in the cost sharing formula. In order for the change to take effect, it will need to be passed by total majority vote for all three towns, similar to our current budget process. If the recommendation passes, then it will become effective per the committee recommendation. If it is not passed by a majority vote at the June referendum, then no change
006will take place and the current formula of 90% valuation, 10% pupil count will remain in effect until the formula is reviewed again in two years as outlined in the reorganization plan. So that's the brief overview of the entire process the committee upheld and now Mary Martin will speak a little more about some details and the outcome the committee chose. And thank you, Angela. Uh, so this public hearing, as Angela said, is to share information about the process and the recommendations of the cost share committee. Um, and as we worked on this as a cost share committee, I want to go over a few of the things that that we learned. We we learned that there is some confusion in our communities around what the cost share formula covers. The cost share formula applies to about
00719% of the RSU16 budget. The cost share formula supports the additional local share which includes uh school construction projects such as the addition uh on the middle school adult education capital improvement and any costs that go beyond the minimum funding requirements by the state. So again, that's only about 19% of of the the total budget. The cost share committee started by looking at how RSU16 reorganization plan outlined the cost when we became an RSU in 2009. In 200910, the cost share was based on 100% valuation. In 201011, it went to 95% valuation and 5% student count. In 2011 12 it became the 90 valuation 10% student count and then in 2016 the cost share was looked at again by the RSU16 school board at Poland's request and at that time no change uh was made.
008So as Angela said our our current one is 90% valuation 10% student count. And then we looked at other districts uh across the state and how they share their local costs. And we found that RSU16 and other school uh RSU units use cost sharing formulas that factor in town property valuation and student enrollment. Throughout the state, there is a wide variety of cost share formulas. They range from a 100% valuation to formulas that factor in student counts that are up to 50% depending on the community's demographics and property valuation. For example, we looked at RSUs that were closest to us. In grey Gloucester, uh RSU uh 15, it's 100% state valuation. in Oxford Hills SAD1 17 it's 75% uh valuation and 25% student count in uh SAD 52 Turner leads in green it's based on
009100% state valuation then we dug a little deeper and uh looked at our own three towns and discovered that there the community profiles in Poland Minet and Mechanic Falls differ in many ways including the per capita income, the median household income, the median age, median age of citizens, and our property valuations town to town. And it's that property valuation that the state uses to determine each community's uh ability to pay for education. We also sent out a survey. Uh 229 people responded to the community survey. 57 of those responding to the survey felt that the current formula is somewhat or strongly inequitable and 32% of the respondents felt it was somewhat or strongly equitable. 11% were neutral. Some of one of the concerns that was raised by some survey respondents was that Poland was paying
010a disproportionate share of the local cost of RSU16. So after looking at many different cost share formulas and how those formulas would impact RS issue 16, the cost share committee determine that only significant changes in the formula would bring it to a level of relief that Poland was seeking. But at the same time if that happened it would be a dramatic swing in the formula that would result in a burden for mechanic falls and for minet. It was clear to the committee that there is no magic formula that's going to work for all three of our towns. For example, basing the formula on 100% student count would increase mechanic fall share by $478,000 minus $22,000 and it would decrease Poland's by 680,000. and it would not take into account the significant differences in the main
011revenue service valuation for our three towns that drives our subsidy and drives the local share that's required to get that subsidy. And at at this time um for the 2026 valuations for our three towns are for Mechanic Falls it's 238 million for Minet it's 291 million for Poland it's 1 billion. So if we were and another option we looked at was what would happen if we returned to the 100% valuation formula that was used initially in 2009 which was the first year of consolidation. It would decrease Mechanic Falls by 53,000 m it by 22,000 and increase Poland by 75,000. But we also knew that that would not take into account the feedback that we received on our survey and the feedback that we've gotten from citizens. So again the question before the cost share committee
012was what if any changes should be made to that cost share formula. So ultimately we decided that some sort of shift uh is needed and it's needed in order to support the three town collaboration that benefits all of our RSU16 students and to address the concerns that have been raised and to let community members know that those concerns have been heard. The committee therefore rec recommends a shift in the cost share formula from its current 90% valuation 10% pupil count to 80% valuation and 20% pupil count and to make those changes over two years. These changes would go into effect in the 2026 27 and then 2728 school years. After that time, it would be recommended that the formulas be re-examined to determine if further adjustments are needed. The committee felt that these smaller steps
013over a shorter period of time would be appropriate so that the communities didn't experience significant swings. In addition, the committee acknowledged that there are also ins uncertainties at both the state and the federal level in terms of school funding. In particular, the main legislature is currently exploring changes to the statewide school funding formula. So the the estimated cost change cost cost share changed based on the proposed 2526 budget which that's all we have right now to to base what those changes might look like for 2627 with an if it went to it go to 8515 that year Poland would pay $57,000 less min would pay about $18,000 00and more and Mechanic Falls would pay $39,000 more. The next year when it went to 8020 uh in 2728 an additional $57,000 again less for Poland another
014uh $18,000 more for Minet and $39,000 more for Mechanic Falls. So the next step since the cost share sharing committee is recommending a change the next step as outlined in the reorganization plan is a referendum on the ballot in all three towns. This would take place on June 10th. It must be approved as Angela said by a majority of the voters around all across all three towns in order to pass a majority of everyone who votes not a majority within each town. This is the same as the school budget approval process. the referendum languages. Do you favor changing the method of cost sharing costs among the towns in regional school unit number 16 the RSU from the current method in which the amounts raised for educational purposes except required local contributions pursuant to 20A MRSA
015section 15688 are aortioned among the RSU towns based on 90% property valuation and 10% pupil count to a method that aortions such amendment based on 80% uh property valuation and 20% pupil count to be phased in over two years as set forth below. phased in a proposed cost sharing method. Fiscal year percentage property valuation and percentage pupil count 20 uh 25 26 90% 10% 26 27 85% 15 and two and 20 27 28 80% 20%. So, I'm sure that that you have some questions. Um, and we will do our our very best to uh address those questions. So, if you could raise your hand, we'll ask um Amy to help us with those that we need help with. So, anybody questions? You could um we have two mics. If you come up to one of
016the mics, thank you. I'm Matt Vader. I live in Poland. Uh my question would be uh well I have two questions. One is this going to be reassessed every three years. So all of a sudden if Poland gets a big spike in students then that could be readjusted for the other townships the reorganization plan. Um it should yes be reassessed at every three years. And in the wording of it, is that going to be in the wording? Um, it's not as it's not in the wording of this. No. But it is a recommendation of the because some people when they go to the ballot and they see this and they don't know it's going to be all they read is this. So more education in that, you know, adequate sentence might fix it. Okay. Thank
017you. I appreciate that. And my second question is, do we h is there more property owners versus renters in each of the towns? Um, [Music] let's see. Well, I I can tell you some of the the information that we had. We had number of households. We had number of housing units. We did maybe the one that um uh might address that there is also moved during previous years. If you look at Mechanic Falls and sometimes those apartment buildings are ones in which there's more movement. Certainly that was different in Mechanic Falls that move during the previous year was almost 13%. mine it was eight. Uh Poland was five. Um so I have the number of housing units but not necessarily the number. So we don't know how many property taxpayers that pay for the majority
018of these are in each section. I don't think we do that would see the increase. Like if someone owns multiple units of apartments or has multiple properties, they might be get hit with a really large tax bill with this readjustment versus a single family home. Yeah. And we don't have that information, but thank you. Thank you. Other questions or or comments? I mean, we we do have some other members of the cash share committee here. If there's anything they would like to add, we'd certainly appreciate hearing. I thought Steve might go [Music] up. Steve Robinson from Poland. Um I'm a select board member and and a member of the committee and I I just want to thank everybody that was on the committee and all the things. I think that the job we did was
019professional um fair and um you know had a good attitude towards everything and I really appreciate that. I do hope that the three communities support the change. Um I think it's important that we act as three communities for this RSU school system. Um, you know, I know that Poland had a 20% tax increase last year for all the property owners and 18 of that 20% was because of school changes. Okay? And this fi really financially is pretty minor um when you really look at it. It's a $57,000 impact um in the year for a 5% change because it's 17 or 19% of the school budget. But I think what it does say is is a large part of the budget of that 17 or 19% is the middle school or any other things that may
020come in the future to other construction projects that are done on any of the buildings within the RSU16 fall under that purview. And I think it's important that if we want to have three communities say that we want to have schools in each one of our communities that people need to be able to step up and say that that's something that they're going to support and do. Um Poland has 46% and all of our data stuff. Poland has 46% of the students. Poland is always going to pay them more. Everything about the other 83% or 80 8 uh 1% of the school budget um is based upon evaluation from the state. So Poland is always going to pay more. There's nothing that's ever going to change from that even if it was 100% student count.
021Yes, it would flip that, but it's talking about flipping the the dollars on $4 million of a $26 million school budget. Okay. So, we kind of just have to realize the whole thing in perspective and put that attitude. And to me, it's about doing the right thing and moving. The other thing that I'm in favor of, and it was noted here a minute ago, that it was looked at when it was asked to be looked at in 2016, I think, was the last time that it was looked at. And that was seven years after we became an RSU. Yet, we wrote a thing to say that it's going to be looked at every three years, and we never really did that. And then from 2016 to 2025 now in nine years we never looked at
022it. Okay. So the reality is we looked at it once in 16 years. Okay. And we're supposed to do it every three years. So I hope that doing this and doing this process and getting everybody involved and again hope the whole three towns support it that it's an attitude and adjustment of being together and being an RSU system. So thank you for the time. Thank you, Steve. Any other questions, comments. Okay. All right. So, I think we can be our next seeing none, um, we can adjourn this public hearing. We just encourage you to vote on June 10th, right? Um, and we will start the budget meeting at 6:15. [Music]