2016-02-08-AC-STM1-STM2-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AC–STM2016-1&2016-2 PPROPRIATIONOMMITTEE In 2009, representatives of the District acknowledged that major building repairs, renovations, and possi- bly replacement would be necessary to ensure the continuation of the school. Despite the seriousness of these problems, the District could not gain the unanimous consent from the member communities then required to initiate a construction project. Some communities withheld support because they felt the size of a renovated school should be smaller than the current school, and more in line with the enrollment from member communities alone. There was also concern that then-existing state regulations did not permit the District to recover capital costs from non-member towns sending students to MRHS, leaving member towns with an undue financial burden. The District School Committee decided that the way forward required the following steps: Conduct a feasibility study to determine potential future enrollment, educational programs, and school district size. Work with the State to create a legal mechanism that would allow the District to recover some capital costs from the towns that send out-of-district students. Amend the District Agreement to meet the future needs of the District. As a result of this effort, The District School Committee has developed a plan to build a new school for a smaller student population and the MSBA has approved the plans. The state has also changed its regula- tions to allow the District to collect a portion of its capital costs for out-of-district students from non- member towns as long as the capital project is MSBA-supported. The remaining piece of the puzzle is to restructure the governance and membership of the District in a way that will allow the building project to be approved. All communities want an equitable formula to deal with anticipated capital costs. Some communities are seriously contemplating leaving the district and have negotiated an option whereby they can exit the District concurrently with the approval of the amend- ed agreement. Finally, the District would like to increase in-district enrollment and encourage non- member communities to join the District. Proposed Amendments The new District Agreement proposes the following key changes: Introducing weighted voting based on each member’s 4-year rolling average enrollment to ap- prove operating budgets and routine matters. Debt-based appropriation will require approval by anun-weighted majority vote. Stabilizing operating assessments by using 4-year rolling average enrollments. Making the assessment of capital costs more equitable via a formula that takes into account 4- year rolling average enrollments and a component of the Chapter 70 state aid formula that deter- mines a community’s ability to support their local school system. Debt may be authorized only by unanimous approval from the town meetings of all member communities, or, if unanimous approval is not obtained and the District so chooses, by aggregate majority vote in an all-district referendum. Allowing a member to withdraw by a simple majority of the town meetings of other member communities, and limiting liability for debt not approved by the withdrawing member. Allowing several smaller members towns which have indicated a desire to withdraw – Box- borough, Carlisle, Dover, Lincoln, Sudbury, Wayland, and Weston – to do so if their town meet- ings approve the amended Agreement and pass a motion to withdraw by March 1, 2016. Allowing newly joining members to negotiate an incentive agreement that would gradually phase in capital assessments over a four-year period. Requiring non-member communities to contribute towards operating and capital costs at a rate that meets or exceeds the costs allocated to member communities. Allowing siting of a new school within Lincoln, even if Lincoln withdraws. 3