SKOWHEGAN — Voters in the six towns in Maine School Administrative District 54 will vote in June on a proposed change to how a piece of the district’s budget is split among their property taxes.

The cost-sharing formula proposal, which will appear on the June 9 ballot as a separate question from the annual budget validation referendum, would affect only a relatively minor portion of the district’s budget but still have an impact on taxation. 

Applying the change to the 2026-27 budget going to voters for review first on Wednesday and then June 9, three towns would stand to benefit financially, while allocations for the other three would increase.

That has led officials from at least one of those latter towns — Norridgewock — to urge voters to reject the proposal and the budget itself.

An informational video that MSAD 54 Superintendent of Schools Jonathan Moody recorded and other budget materials are available online at https://bit.ly/54Budget. 

Moody, who has said throughout the yearlong process that led to the referendum that his role is to be neutral and provide data to officials and voters, is also scheduled to give a presentation at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Margaret Chase Smith Community School at 40 Heselton St. in Skowhegan.

The referendum lays out a formula change that would factor in pupil count from each town when dividing additional local costs, those costs not covered by the state Essential Programs and Services formula.

The proposal, if approved, would use a split of 90% state-determined property valuation and 10% pupil count to determine each town’s allocation of additional local costs for two years, beginning with the 2026-27 budget. In the third year and beyond, the formula would go to 80% valuation and 20% pupil count.

If voters reject the change, the district will continue splitting additional local costs based solely on each town’s valuation. That is what the district has done since 1967, when it formed, according to Moody.

In the proposed $53.9 million budget for 2026-27, local property taxpayers would contribute $16.8 million, an increase of 1.998% over the current year.

Of that $16.8 million, about $13.6 million is set by the state Essential Programs and Services formula. Each town would pay the same amount regardless of the district to which it belongs, Moody said in his video presentation. Those allocations would not be affected at all by the proposed cost-sharing formula change. 

The remaining $3.24 million of the $16.8 million to be funded locally are the additional local costs that would be affected by the cost-sharing formula change.

“The ‘additional local’ is actually a place where MSAD 54 has been considerably below the state average and below other districts around us,” Moody said. “And the reason that number is so low is because the board has been really successful in increasing revenue over time to decrease local property taxes.”

According to budget documents Moody prepared, basing the additional local costs solely on valuation, the allocations for each town would be as follows in the proposed 2026-27 budget:

• Canaan: $1.09 million required local and $260,000 additional local, for a total increase of $41,000 or 3.16%.

• Cornville: $793,000 required local and $190,000 additional local, for a total increase of $62,000 or 6.74%.

• Mercer: $574,000 required local and $137,000 additional local, for a total increase of $39,000 or 5.75%.

• Norridgewock: $1.86 million required local and $445,000 additional local, for a total increase of $133,000 or 6.10%.

• Skowhegan: $8.07 million required local and $1.93 million additional local, for a total decrease of $46,000 or 0.46%.

• Smithfield: $1.18 million required local and $281,000 additional local, for a total increase of $101,000 or 7.45%. 

Shifting to the 90-10 formula would have the following effects on the town allocations listed above:

• Canaan: $17,800 increase

• Cornville: $4,500 increase

• Mercer: $2,400 decrease

• Norridgewock: $16,100 increase

• Skowhegan: $25,000 decrease

• Smithfield: $11,000 decrease

The proposal comes on the heels of concerns from some towns that have experienced an outsized impact in taxation despite modest overall school budget increases in recent years. State law outlines a process in which a school district can propose a change to its cost-sharing formula, and an 18-member committee with equal representation from each town ultimately put forward the proposal set for the June referendum.

“There have been a few select boards, over time, that have asked if we might take a look at this,” Moody said.

In Smithfield, one of the towns that would benefit from the change as its valuation has increased significantly in recent years, the frustration over its share of the school budget led to a petition to withdraw from the district.

But the petition was withdrawn after Moody shared figures showing that switching to Oakland-based Regional School Unit 18 would have resulted in a bigger hit to Smithfield property taxpayers.

Skowhegan, which by far has the most students in the district and the most registered voters of the six district towns, would see its tax allocation decrease this year whether or not the cost-sharing proposal passes. 

The select board there briefly discussed the proposal at a recent meeting. Vice Chair Kevin Nelson, who served on the MSAD 54 committee that created the proposal, noted it would be a benefit to Skowhegan taxpayers.

In Norridgewock, town officials decided earlier this month to take the rare step of encouraging voters to reject both the school budget and the cost-sharing proposal. If the school budget is approved, Norridgewock would receive among the larger percentage increases for the six towns. If the cost-sharing formula is approved, it would add to the increase.

Norridgewock officials, in a newsletter article to be distributed to town residents, took aim at Skowhegan, which has sheltered much of its large-scale industry and development in tax increment financing districts. The valuation increases from those projects are not factored into the state-determined valuation while the TIFs are in effect, which contributed to Skowhegan’s state valuation going down this year.

“Too often,” the article says, “the interests of the smaller towns are overshadowed by the size and influence of Skowhegan, despite the very real financial pressures facing taxpayers throughout the rest of the District.”