Robbinston voters reject school budget

Robbinston voters soundly defeated the local school budget of over $944,000 that was put to referendum vote on August 24 as part of the budget validation process, after initially approving the budget a week before. Article 1, which asked if voters favored the school budget adopted at the August 17 town meeting, was turned down by a vote of 116 against and 40 in favor. Article 2, which asked if voters wished to continue the budget validation process for three more years, was approved by a vote of 111 to 45. Voter turnout was high, at about 38%.
The rejection means that the school board will need to revise the budget. A second public town meeting will be held and then another referendum vote will be taken. The school board is expected to meet again soon.
As the budget stood, Robbinston residents faced a possible near doubling of the local property tax rate, from the current 12 mills to about 20 mills. According to First Selectman Tom Moholland, the reasons for an increase in the mill rate would be three‑fold. "The main reason is the state special ed requirement C one‑tenth of the budget can't be touched. The second is an increase in tuition students being sent to high school. The third is the state, which is cutting the subsidy to the school."
In an interview held before the August 24 vote, Moholland said that the town has been "revaluating just about every year" so the increase in mill would have little to do with a sudden and unexpected change in the revaluation that some Washington County towns have experienced recently. The town has a reserve fund of about $200,000. Moholland was concerned that, depending on what budget amount was approved by the voters and what effect that would have on the mill rate, the reserve fund might be used to offset the mill rate increase for the 2010‑11 year. Moholland was not enthusiastic about the tactic of using reserve funds and noted that the fire the town experienced just a few years ago used up about $90,000 from the fund in very short order.
"There hasn't always been advance planning, looking into the future," the first selectman said, in particular of anticipating the sudden increase of tuition students for high school. The town "has been running very lean." He anticipated that many elements of the school's budget will need to be looked at again next year, including teacher contracts and benefits. "It's a balancing act," he said, of providing a good education for the town's children, but taking into account the repercussions of a high mill rate.

Voters increase budget with school choice decision
The town's annual school budget meeting held on August 17 also had good attendance, but with residents voting to increase the budget that would then go to the referendum vote. Article 1 was the subject of a lengthy discussion involving freedom of choice for high school attendance and a tuition contract as approved by the Robbinston School Committee and the Calais School Committee beginning September 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2014, at a tuition rate set each year at $800 less than the state secondary tuition rate per student per 175 days.
Voters turned down the proposal, which would have reduced the tuition cost in the budget by $24,000 for the next year, because it would have eliminated high school choice for four years. The contract the Robbinston and Calais school boards negotiated would have allowed all Robbinston students currently enrolled in any high school in Washington County to stay where they have enrolled until graduation, including last June's eighth grade students who have already registered at a high school of their choice. Currently, 30 Robbinston students attend Calais High School while five students attend Washington Academy and the other five go to Shead.
Because Article 1 was turned down by the voters, the Robbinston School Committee will enter into discussions with Shead High School. The Shead tuition rate is less than Calais, and school board member Tom Critchley said he believes Shead would not require all students to attend Shead. Thirteen Grade 8 students will graduate this year.
The failure to pass Article 1 resulted in an increase in the additional local funds to be raised under Article 15. The budget committee had recommended $125,449.81, but that amount was then increased to $149,449.81.
Voters then passed the other articles concerning specific school expenses. Article 13 passed and was to see what sum the town would appropriate for the total cost of funding public education from Kindergarten to Grade 12 as described in the Essential Programs and Services funding formula, which recommended $757,322.48, and to see what sum the town will raise as the town's contribution to the total cost of funding public education from Kindergarten to Grade 12 as described in the EPS. The school committee recommended $346,608, the required minimum to obtain the state share.
The state share of the EPS is $367,518 for 2010‑11, a drop of $50,879 from the $418,397 received in 2009‑2010. The local share is $364,406 for 2010‑11, an increase of $63,832 from the previous year's share of $282,776.
The proposed school budget for 2010‑2011 was $920,772, compared to $835,636 adopted in 2009‑2010. Rejection of Article 1 resulted in an additional $24,000, increasing the total budget to $944,772, put to the voters at referendum on August 24.