More About District Consolidation Amendments

I just received this information and thought it should be shared:

Media Update from the Maine Department of Education
April 18, 2008

Update on Reorganization Legislation Enacted by the Legislature

The Legislature gave final approval this morning to LD 2323, An Act To Remove Barriers to the Reorganization of School Administrative Units.  The House voted 92-41 on Thursday night and the Senate voted this morning 22-12.

LD 2323 was not a Governor’s bill.  It was sponsored by Sen. Peter Bowman.  It included nearly all of the provisions of the original LD 1932 as written by the Education Committee, including the three non-controversial financial fixes in the original Majority Report adopted by 10 members of the Committee, as well as several technical and other amendments added by the Committee. All these provisions were also in the Minority Report on LD 1932. 

In addition, LD 2323 was amended by House Amendment “G,” presented by Rep. David Farrington. House Amendment “G” included the text of what was a separate bill, LD 2280.  That amendment was added without dissent under the hammer (details below).

The key provisions from LD 1932 that are in the new bill:

• Allows local cost-sharing agreements
• Allows minimum special education subsidy receivers to remain eligible for minimum subsidy if they join a new regional school unit (RSU);
• Removes the 2 mill minimum requirement;
• Allows an exception for some units of 1,000 to 1,200 students (in isolated rural areas);
• Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of local school committees and regional school unit boards and the relationship between the two; and
• Includes other technical corrections and clarifications. 

The bill does NOT include the one-year delay in the budget validation referendum requirement that was in the original LD 1932 (so all units must use the budget validation referendum process this year).  This is the only provision in the Education Committee’s LD 1932 that was not part of the new bill.

LD 2323 also authorizes the Commissioner of Education to approve a plan for an alternative organizational structure if the plan satisfies the purposes of the school administrative reorganization law, including:

• The structure must result in consolidation of system administration;
• The structure must include consolidation of special education administration, transportation administration and administration of business functions;
• Adoption of a core curriculum;
• Adoption of consistent school policies, calendars, and collective bargaining agreements; and
• Requires any alternative organizational structure to conform to the same budget format and referendum approval procedures as regional school units. 

House Amendment “G” incorporated all of LD 2280, passed previously in the House.  Some have referred to this as the “Bucket A” bill drafted by the Education Committee. This amendment contained technical fixes and minor changes largely around deadlines and timing of the budget validation referendum process and a change to the calculation of penalties. 

The bill moves the Nov. 4 deadline for communities to approve reorganization plans by referendum to Jan. 30, 2009 (and adjusts related deadlines accordingly). It extends to 14 days the amount of time municipalities may take before holding a budget validation referendum after the school budget meeting. It reduces the required ballots for the budget referendum from two to one. And it simplifies calculation of the penalty for communities that opt out – units would be subject to a 2 percent higher mill rate expectation.

More detail on key provisions from the original LD 1932 that are included in LD 2323

The following provisions are unchanged from the Education Committee’s original LD 1932:

1.       Cost-sharing agreements. The bill allows school units to negotiate a local cost-sharing agreement to compensate for cost-shifting that occurs as a result of reorganization. The original law set a formula for cost-sharing based on valuation and does not allow for locally crafted cost-sharing agreements. This removes a barrier to almost every potential RSU. One potential RSU has a complete and approved plan that is conditional upon passage of legislation to allow for local cost-sharing agreements and several more are very close to having a complete plan that cannot be implemented without this legislation.

2.       Minimum special education subsidy. The bill allows school units currently eligible for the minimum special education subsidy to keep that eligibility when they join in a new RSU, even if the new RSU is not a minimum subsidy unit. This removes a potential barrier to 63 minimum special education subsidy units.

3.       2 mill minimum. The bill removes the requirement, found in the law as enacted, that every SAU joining an RSU must raise a minimum 2 mills. Roughly two dozen municipalities currently raise less than two mills and could be forced to increase their education mill rate as a result of the existing law as written.

4.       Cost-center format. The original law contained a technical error by referring CSDs and SADs to a different budget format requirement than for RSUs. The bill corrects this error so that all school units will now be required to prepare their annual budgets with 11 cost centers. This is a request of superintendents and others in the field and affects all CSDs and SADs. This does not change any of the requirements surrounding the budget validation referendum process.

5.       Isolated rural units. The bill allows the Commissioner to approve so-called “doughnut hole” school units of between 1,000 and 1,200 students in isolated rural communities.

6.       Ownership of school property. The bill clarifies that municipalities may retain ownership of school property as negotiated in the formation of regional school units.

Note: All items above were part of the original LD 1932 as approved by 10 members of the Education Committee and the minority report endorsed by the remaining three members of the Committee.

Bill text and other info at: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp?ID=280028851

Be sure to find the original bill text and the text of House Amendment “G,” the only amendment adopted by the Legislature to LD 2323.

>>

Here is an article from the Saturday, April 19th Portland Press Herald

~John Brandt