AUGUSTA – A Department of Education official confirmed today that MSAD 58 and MSAD 74 will not face a consolidation subsidy penalty in the next fiscal year, if they vote to share administrative offices.
A commonly-asked question regarding the Alternate Organizational Structure proposal has been whether the plan, which would create a single central office shared by both school districts, would prevent application of the so-called “consolidation penalty” in the next fiscal year. The question has been one of timing versus precedent; the law states that the AOS vote needed to occur before Jan. 31 to avoid the 2011-2012 subsidy penalty, while past precedent, in other districts, has indicated that later action would prevent implementation of the reduction. Further complicating the picture is the fact that the DOE has already released next fiscal year’s subsidy figures, which show the subsidy reductions imposed and distributed among complying districts.
However, DOE’s Jim Rier, director of finance and operations, has indicated that the formation of an AOS between MSAD 58 and MSAD 74 would avoid the consolidation penalty in the next fiscal year. Rier, who said he was addressing the issue following “a number of requests from legislators,” reported that if the AOS was operational by July 1, 2011, then the penalties would not be applied. The state’s subsidy figures would be recalculated to indicate that change.
MSAD 58’s penalty has been estimated at $140,669 in lost subsidy in the next fiscal year. According to the district’s administrative office and Superintendent Quenten Clark, that penalty would be distributed among the five member towns. The application of the subsidy losses would be based on typical funding calculations, chiefly valuation; Avon would lose $12,627, Eustis would lose $29,303, Kingfield would lose $45,250, Phillips would lose $26,888, and Strong would lose $26,600 in state subsidy.
The AOS proposal creates a single central office, shared by MSAD 58 and MSAD 74. The office would include a superintendent, the business office personnel and special education administration, which would provide support for both districts. Immediate, projected savings for MSAD 58 include half a superintendent’s position as well as some savings garnered through the consolidation of the two districts’ business offices. MSAD 58 and MSAD 74 already share a special eduction director.
A 10-director board, five from each district, would govern and set budgets for the functions controlled by the AOS. Those central office budgets would then be incorporated into the general budgets developed by the two school boards, independently.
Supporters of the AOS say that the proposal avoids the state’s penalty; provides modest cost savings, mostly in the superintendent’s position; and sets the groundwork for future collaboration. Those in opposition say that too much of the proposal, and the future of the consolidation law, remains up in the air, and that the plan was developed too quickly. Some have said that one superintendent covering two districts will not work, and an assistant superintendent-like position will need to be created, diminishing any potential for savings.
School board directors have come out in support and opposition of the proposal.
Rier’s letter to the district was quite clear that both districts must approve consolidation in order to avoid penalties. In the past, districts (including MSAD 74) have successfully avoided subsidy penalties by voting “yes” when their would-be partners voted “no,” but that will not work in the next fiscal year. A majority vote is required in each district (but not each town) to form the AOS.
MSAD 74 votes Saturday, March 5, while MSAD 58 votes Tuesday, March 8.
Vote the AOS down.
A big thank you to our Legislators for rattling the cage and getting DOE to provide accurate information we need to make an informed decision. No more guesswork on this part of the issue.
We are starting to reap the rewards of a government NOT controlled by idiots! Now vote the AOS down.
For me I will vote against this because I dont believe we should be paying the penalty in the fist place. This WHOLE legislation was a boondoggle from the start. (consolidation law) I understand we are in economic dire straits but I feel we are giving up a lot of say to save money and in the grand (grand) scheme of the entire budget the penalty is a drop in the bucket. We lose some of our local control if we join the AOS. I will be voting against it as I believe we should have more of a say at the local level.
Darren,
You may be right that we shouldn’t have been paying the penalty in the first place. But the fact is we are and there are no signs that it is going away. Even Mike Pond said in his earlier letter that there is no way that the other towns of the state are going to vote to repeal the penalties. While none of us may like these penalties it seems unfair to make our neighbors (especially the elderly on fixed incomes) pay the price in increased taxes just because we want to spit in the eye of Augusta.
Unlike the RSU this plan keeps control of our schools, our education programs and our school budgets right here in SAD 58. Even the shared central office budget has to be approved by our school board and us in the annual budget vote. I guess I wonder exactly what control you believe we are giving up and why that’s worth throwing away $140,000 of taxpayer money.
Darren,
While I understand your opinion on joining the AOS, there are areas that I must disagree on with you.
I hope that the new administration in Augusta will help turn this state around, we can’t just sit and wait. Our do nothing approach hasn’t gotten us very far. When you say that the penatly is just a drop in the bucket, that reminds me of what is wrong in the state and federal government. When their bucket gets full, they just go get a bigger bucket, then tell us to fill that, then they get a bigger bucket, and on and on it goes. What we need is a smaller bucket. If all the water doesn’t fit, then something needs to be left out .
Sometimes the right way isnt the easiest way.
New information has surfaced in a newspaper article today that the penalties will be waived if we do not join the AOS. Read the LSJ.
I was mistaken about the article. We need a legislative law to overturn the penalties. My mistake. I will still be voting against the AOS.
Darren,
while we disagree on this issue (I intend to support the AOS) I respect and appreciate the fact that you correct a mistake when you make one. I can tell that you sincerely care about the town and the future we just disagree on this issue. I am glad that the at least the facts are clear now that we will avoid the penalty with a yes vote.
Is there a surplus we are not being told about? Open your eyes SAD 58 residents! Often things are not as they seem or as they are told to the “little people”.Vote NO on Tuesday!
Strong resident,
It will be a sad day if our decisions are based on fear and suspicion rather than on the facts and concern for our students and the taxpayers. Darren and I disagree on the AOS. I am sure he has his reasons but he also has the integrity to admit the facts. We are in Dire financial straits as he says. Approving the AOS would remove the $140,000 penalty as he acknowledges and help keep taxes down and save educational programs for kids.
To believe what you have posted would mean we believed that every school board member (including retiring member Mike Pond) are knowingly and intentionally lying to thier friends and neighbors. I can not and will not accept that.
If keeping property taxes lower and saving schools and kids programs is not enough to over come your opposition for working cooperatively with another school district while keeping control of our own schools then Ok that is your right. But there is no justification to be slandering our community members. There is an old truth: when you resort to insults to win an argument then your reasons can’t be very strong. If you can’t be part of the solution at least don’t be throwing rocks at the people who are putting in their time and efforts to try to lower your property taxes.
Penalty or no penalty, The AOS is a bad deal, and should be voted down. SAD 74 voted in favor, and they have every reason to- their teachers’ salaries would be brought up to SAD 58 levels, they have a town trying to get out of the District, they have in the past been identified as having a failing high school, which meant they had financial incentive to get rid of their principal. How did they do it? By promoting him to Superintendent. He’s still under contract, so SAD 58 will have two options- hire him or buy out his contract. Does that sound like a savings? He has been quoted as saying that the Superintendent will have an office in both Districts- does that sound like a savings? He’s also been quoted as saying that if both Districts have administrative staff whose positions are duplicates, that both employees will be retained. Does that sound like a savings? The hidden costs will exceed the penalty in no time. There are more unidentified hidden costs to this- do you really want to be tied together forever?? I certainly don’t. VOTE NO ON THE AOS!!! It’s a distraction- they want you to look at $130,000 out of a ten million dollar budget. If you saw a penny on the sidewalk, would you pick it up? I would- but if it were next to a one hundred dollar bill, I would pay attention to the one hundred dollar bill first.