Staff Writer
The issues regarding school reorganization units continued last week as the Regional Planning Committee, made up of area school district and community representatives dealt with the pros and cons of Community Ownership of school Unit’s Buildings and infrastructures.
Committee members and concerned community residents in attendance, listened as Mary Jane McCalmon referred to a letter regarding Local Schools Retaining Ownership of Local School Committee. McCalmon had put together two options regarding the pros and cons of ownership being retained by the town and ownership being transferred to the RSU, emphasizing that there were seven important obstacles each town should consider in deciding which way to go.
The seven options included:
• Decided whether you (the town) want or if you care if you get school construction money. The Department of Education will not approve a subsidized school construction project to renovate, expand or replace a building that was leased to an RSU.
• Insurance Costs. Do you (the town) care that there may be some additional insurance costs for each town that decides to keep their buildings.
• Liability exposure to the towns who keep their property. The town may incur additional legal fees and insurance costs and be potentially liable for major expenditures related to repairs or mitigation.
• The 10-year lease limit that is in the law. Currently under state law a lease of school property may not exceed 10 years.
• There would need to be a locally adopted school committee. In order for the municipality to maintain ownership of the school buildings a local school committee would have to exist. The governance Committee recommended no local school committees.
• School closure process if you don’t own it. The school closing provisions in the law allow towns to overrule a school closing decision by the RSU board may not apply to municipal-owned facilities.
• Community use of schools. Language could be put into the plan that any policy that is in place now, at any one of these schools, could be preserved until such time as the RSU Board has a chance to look at them and recommend that they maintain the current lease policy.
RPC members discussed the pros and cons at considerable length before entering into a brief caucus period. Returning to the table a motion was made that ‘all buildings and infrastructure be retained by the RSU’. This motioned was seconded, followed by a vote with 15 committee members voting in favor of the motion and 6 being in opposition. The motion was carried.
With the vote to retain all buildings and infrastructure completed, Frank McElwain, superintendent of the Caribou School District, updated the group on the plan process, stating that each section of the RSU Plan may be submitted to the State Department once, where it will be reviewed, followed by a letter of response, concerning the submitted plan and any denials or changes that may need to be addressed, will be sent in return. Upon receiving this reply, the committee will respond in turn. The Department of Education suggestions and plan changes will be e-mailed to the RCP group.
The RCP committee was informed that the next step involves the plan presented to the respective school boards which need to have an agenda item to Submit RSU Plan to the DOE. The schools boards are voting to Submit the plan to the Department of Education for commissioner approval before sending the plan to referendum. The school boards are Not voting whether or not they approve of the plan.
The group was informed that the RSU’s are setting up transition teams so voters have a brochure in hand when they go to vote. Since this communication effort needs some planning, it was suggested between 9 and 12 individuals should be on the committee, possible one person from each two. Anyone interested in serving on the Transition Team should contact Sam Collins or Andrew McNeally,
The RPC committee was reminded that town clerks must post the notice at least 45 days prior to the referendum voting.
