SALEM — Residents of the four Maine School Administrative District 58 towns are scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. Monday, July 20, at Mount Abram High School for another opportunity to approve the district’s budget.
MSAD 58 voters rejected a $12.7 million spending plan June 9 by a vote of 576-525. The failed spending plan included a $472,000 cut that voters made during the initial budget meeting May 18.
Following the rejection, the MSAD 58 board of directors opted to send its original $13.2 million proposal back to the public.
MSAD 58 is already into its new fiscal year, which started July 1. The district is now operating on the $12.6 million budget set for 2025-26, until a new budget is passed.
The proposed $13.2 million budget increases spending by $667,000, or 5.32 percent, from the current fiscal year. This plan would raise the district’s overall assessment by 6.13 percent.
Under the proposed plan, assessments for the four member towns would increase as follows:
- Avon: $693,000, up $27,426 (4.12 percent)
- Kingfield: $2.3 million, up $81,467 (3.67 percent)
- Phillips: $1.4 million, up $125,792 (9.77 percent)
- Strong: $1.4 million, up $103,291 (7.74 percent)
In addition to voting on individual cost centers, voters will decide whether to transfer $500,000 into three reserve accounts: $300,000 into the Capital Reserve Fund, $100,000 into the special education account and $100,000 into the technology account. The total represents the funds voters chose not to transfer May 18.
Whatever budget voters approve at Monday’s meeting will go to a referendum in the individual towns Aug. 10. Polls are set to be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in Avon, Kingfield, Phillips and Strong.
The ballot is expected to feature a single referendum question asking voters if they approve of the action taken at the July 20 meeting. A “yes” vote adopts the budget, while a “no” vote restarts the process.
Voters should also expect an optional straw poll to share their opinions on the budget. The poll will provide MSAD 58 directors with more information on the reasons behind “no” votes, indicating whether voters favored a higher or lower spending limit.
