The Whazup News

05/26/2026

05/23/2026

WEBSTER LIBRARY IN KINGFIELD CELEBRATES POETRY WITH
THEIR ANNUAL CONTEST
Webster Library, in Kingfield recently hosted a poetry celebration recognizing winners of its 11th annual poetry contest. Attendees were treated to poetry readings from contest winners as well as others in the audience. This year's contest drew a record 83 entries, including 64 submissions from youth participants, 14 from teens and five from adults. Prizes were awarded in each category. A complete list of winners is available on the Webster Library page.

05/20/2026

KINGFIELD SELECT BOARD TRIES TO DIGEST THE NUMBERS ON SAD 58’s SCHOOL BUDGET BLACKBOARD

By Claudia Diller

KINGFIELD, MAINE - Given the turmoil SADs in Maine are dealing with around consolidation closings and withdrawal threats, the challenge of trying to get school budgets approved by local rural towns in particular has hit SAD 58 hard.

WHY THE INCREASE
SAD 58 Superintendent Laura Columbia, presented the Select Board with a summary of the budget numbers for 2027 at the Select Board meeting held May18, 2026. She stated that the major impacts affecting the increases are salary and benefit increases, higher fuel and operational costs, restoring a principal at the Phillips Elementary School that Columbia thought was to be closed but was not. She added the increases also included a full-time gifted and talented teacher that will be reimbursed in two years, and replacing three aging buses at $35,000 each which is also reimbursed in future years.

WHY NO SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED
When asked by SB member Wade Browne why no schools were closed after a long period of talk about it, Columbia answered that the district did a large study of the schools and what shape the buildings where in. It was determined that all of the school buildings will cost the same per square foot to maintain over a 30 year period adding that some will need more repairs now, others later.

She also stated that closing schools is no longer an option because of a variety of reasons including the equipment and infrastructure needed to accommodate different grade levels legally.

Wade asked if closing all town schools and using the money saved was put into Mt. Abram was an option. Columbia replied that the district is currently in the process of hiring an architect to explore that option. Mt. Abram is centrally located to all towns in the district.

The board can approve to close a school but the state and the town have to approve it too. Columbia agreed that there are too many buildings for the number of students, adding that enrollment is down 20 students this year. The number of children home schooled has remained consistent in the past several years, and the district does send out a letter offering courses to them, but their interest stops when they ask whether the state’s vaccine mandate has changed. It has not.

WHY NO DECISIONS YET
When asked, Columbia stated that a change in the rural funding formula by the state may go up over a period of three years but was not counting on it right now. How the funding is dispersed is still a formula that Columbia could not discuss without consulting numbers not available to her at the meeting.

No decision about future plans for the district schools has been made at this point, and is complicated, Columbia stated, by the possible withdrawals of some schools from the district.

A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE BUDGET INCREASES
The 2026 revenue was $12,541,356. The 2027 proposed budget is $13,208,847. That reflects an increase of $667,491 or 5.32% in 2027. The average impact to taxpayers is 6.13%.

There is a high balance forward (used to reduce taxes), toward the budget this year that Columbia feels is not sustainable in the future. She added that she would like to reduce it to $400,000 in this budget round then reduce it to $200,000 in the future. Columbia continued that the balance forward is going down and will hopefully keep going down for long term stability. The district, she said, needs to be careful not to use one-time funds to reduce the annual budget as it is only a short-term solution. At some point those funds will not be available, she concluded.

Other revenue such as tuition estimates, shows an increase of $441,000. Required local contribution shows a $171,095 increase, state (taxpayer) contribution shows an increase of $196,646, and other revenue that is raised on top of state revenue is up $667,491. Overall that’s a $667,491 increase.

ESTABLISHING RESERVE FUNDING
To begin addressing future needs therefore, Columbia explained that Article 17 in the warrant will establish an $800,000 Capital Reserve Fund, which is essentially a savings account. It would be used at the discretion of the School Board.

Articles 18 -21 establish four $100,000 reserve funds, one each for special education, technology, un-budgeted health and dental insurance, and fuel. These reserve funds will create stability, Columbia concluded.

Select Board member Wade Browne asked how the reserve accounts are dispersed. Columbia stated the district has to appear before the school board to ask for money to be used specifically for that reserve fund’s purpose.

Board member Kim Jordan expressed that $800,000 is a lot of money. Columbia explained that this $800,000 is an accumulation of grant money that has been building over a period of years starting with Covid.

Kathy Houston asked about whether the fund has a specific use this year, and how much money is in the capital reserve fund right now. There is approximately $1.2 million in the fund now, Columbia stated, that has been used for the repair of the Mt. Abram roof, pillars and heating unit, insurance issues around bricks falling off the Phillips school, (a window replacement in Kingfield used local funds), and for an Infrared study of the Mountain Day school roof in Strong. This year’s reserve fund has not been tapped. Because of movement in the district, Columbia is trying to focus on the health and safety of the buildings but added she would prefer to be able to spend it on the districts real assets - the children one day.

COST TO TAXPAYERS
The total MSAD 58 increase is $337,976.

Kingfield, at $2,301,616 reflects the largest share of the budget and would increase 3.67%, up from $2,220,149 and a monthly increase of $7/month based on a $200,000 home.

Avon - increases 4.12% from $666,024 to $693,450, $11/month/$200,000 home

Phillips increases 9.77% from $1,288,172 to $1,413,964, $10/month/$200,000 home

Strong increases 7.74% from $1,335,007 to $5,847,328, $20/month/$200,000 home.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
Kingfield - 39.36%
Avon - 11.86%
Phillips - 24.18%
Strong - 24.60%

ANNUAL SCHOOL BUDGET HEARING QUICK SUMMARY
Covered by Sue Davis

Later that evening, Columbia was at Mt. Abram from 7-9:00 pm where the annual budget meeting where 21 articles on the warrant were discussed.

The Budget started at $13,208,847, but with cuts ended at $12,736,847, accounting for a total of $472,000 in cuts in 12 expense articles.

Article 1. Regular instruction: $3,356,797 cut by $50,000
Article 2. Special education: $3,348,809 cut by $80,000
Article 3. Career and Technical Education: 0
Article 4. Other Education: $316,799 didn’t catch the cut
Article 5. Student and staff support: $1,190,570 cut by $20,000
Article 6. System Administration: $640,455 cut by $47,000
Article 7. School administration: $886,490 cut by $45,000
Article 8. Transportation and Buses: $1,383,781 cut by $30,000
Article 9. Facilities Maintenance: $1,885,625 cut by $200,000
Article 10. Debt Service: $45,973 combined with Article 11
All other expenditures: $106,548 and Article 15 adult education $22,580 were combined and passed with no changes.
Article 12. Approved the budget as allocated by four towns, as written before adjusting to cuts
Article13. Approved with all $472,000 cuts distributed among the towns.
Article 16: approval to spend whatever grants, etc., come to the district
Article 17: Capital Reserve fund $800,000 cut by $300,000
Article 18: Education Reserve Fund $100,000 cut to 0 but approved as a reserve fund
Article 19: Technology Reserve Fund $100,000 cut to 0 and NOT approved as a t=reserve fund
Article 20: Insurance Reserve Fund $100,000 approved, no cuts
Article 21: Fuel Reserve Fund $100,000 approved, no cuts.

OTHER
Bob Carlton attended to the meeting to announce he was running for another four-year term as County Commissioner.

He stated the county has received $2million from Senator Collins’ office. He also noted that $700,000 in TIF funds were used to build the new county building for between $4.2- $4.7million (Carlton could not recall), without taxpayer money. The County Commission worked with the Sheriff’s department to get grants for rehab programs for inmates.

SB member Wade Browne asked why the budget was going up so much. Carleton stated the county is still working on the budget though the budget has come down from the original number since the negotiations started. He did add that the increase in salaries and generally cost of running government was part of it. The proposed 2026-27 county budget is approximately $13 million which is about $1.3 million higher than 2025-26.

05/20/2026

CAN A MORATORIUM STOP ANYONE FROM BUILDING A CAMPGROUND ON ANY PIECE OF PROPERTY IN KINGFIELD?

By Claudia Diller

Present: Wade Browne, Chair, Hunter Lander, Kim Jordan, Chris Rushton, TM Leanna Targett. Absent: Morghan Dunham

Note: Because of the length of this meeting, and the importance of this issue, the other items covered in this meeting are written in a separate report to be posted.

KINGFIELD, MAINE - There will be no sleeping by the Select Board in the sleepy little town of Kingfield for the next week as they try to come to a decision about whether or not to allow voters to determine the fate of a 180-day moratorium that temporarily halts the construction of a campsite in the Ira Mountain residential area by the Bowdoin College Outing Club. A final decision by the Select Board will occur at a special Select Board meeting to be held at 5:00pm, May 26, 2026, at Webster Hall. No public comments will be heard.
The three-hour meeting included a final discussion by the Board, and public comment regarding a petition signed by 83 residents of the town, asking for the moratorium. At issue are loopholes in the town’s zoning ordinance that allow a campsite to be built in a R1 zoned residential neighborhood in Kingfield.

THE MORATORIUM DEFINED
The moratorium’s success rests on two requirements defined by the state of Maine as stated in Title 30-A. 4356.Moratoria

In essence, a moratorium must meet the following two requirements:

The moratorium is needed to “prevent a shortage or an overburden of public facilities that would otherwise occur during the effective period of the moratorium or that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of any proposed or anticipated development.”

Because “the application of existing comprehensive plans, land use ordinances or regulations or other applicable laws, if any, is inadequate to prevent serious public harm from residential, commercial or industrial development in the affected geographic area.”

TOWN ATTORNEY DISCUSSION
Town Manager, Leanna Targett began the discussion by asking Amanda Meader, the Town of Kingfield’s council who was present via Zoom, for guidance on whether or not the SB should put the moratorium to a vote before the people of Kingfield.

Meader reiterated the state’s requirement for approving the petition for a town vote regarding 1) overburdening of public utilities and 2) applicable guidance “to prevent serious public harm.” She expressed concern that the town has not had the opportunity to think about and create regulations, and therefore an ordinance, to deal with a type of development that the town had never considered.

THE BOWDOIN PROJECT
Planning Board Chair, Richard Hawkes explained to the Select Board the nature of the Bowdoin project.

The area in question is over an access bridge across the Carrabassett River designated as a growth district that leads into a rural one district. The Bowdoin proposal is the first lot in the rural one district. The PB has been proactive in addressing the issue of increased traffic in the area in the past by putting conditions on the previous developer to do a traffic and bridge studies.

The PB decided to treat each new developer, including Bowdoin College similarly, Hawkes continued. The PB reviewed the Bowdoin application and listened to strong concerns by area residents concerning traffic safety on their narrow roads and the bridge.

The Bowdoin College Outing Club is proposing a campsite to accommodate up to 112 campers (Bowdoin stated 84), a staff bunkhouse, bath house and an outdoor pavilion to start with on 20.7 acres in the neighborhood. Future development of the site might include a lodge but is not a part of the current application. Bowdoin has stated there would only be 84 campers based on a maximum of seven 12-passenger vans.

TRAFFIC SAFETY IS THE ISSUE
Meader’s original sense was that the PB was going to be obligated to approve the application if certain conditions were met. She added however, that at the time she was not aware that there were more significant safety issues. And then a petition was circulated asking for a moratorium that now sheds yet another and different light on the process.

SB member, Kim Jordan stated the town has heard from residents over the years about the safety access to the bridge from Route 27. Would that concern be reason enough for a moratorium in this case, she inquired.

Meader replied that the strongest chance for the moratorium to go to the voters is the safety issue. And what she is seeing is that the safety issue can be addressed with proper engineering and may be an issue of inconvenience as opposed to an insurmountable problem.

SB member Chris Rushton countered that there would be increased traffic with the new Canadian port of entry border crossing, and that there is no way to widen Route 27 to accommodate a turn-off lane to access the bridge safely because there is a river on one side and a ledge on the other. This would also be a future issue if not addressed now, which Meader then stated was valid.

A 2023 traffic study stated that when the area reaches 87 homes built, another study would be required and would necessitate addressing the safety of getting on and off the access bridge onto Route 27. Right now the area has around 67 homes.

Board member Wade Browne asked how a campground compares to a home or number of homes. Hawkes replied there needs to be a discussion about the comparison.

PB Secretary, Sue Davis added that parties on both sides of the issue have expressed a need for time to discuss the road safety issue. She asked whether making time to have that discussion is not a reason for the moratorium or at least a delay. Hawkes agreed that more time is needed for the PB to discuss the material submitted by Bowdoin and the residents. Thus far the PB has only approved accepted the Bowdoin application as complete with conditions. Actual approval is another, and the final, step.

Browne added that the expansion and road use by the Eagle Ridge development is another issue because there is a plan to connect the two areas which introduces a whole new issue of increased traffic.

WHAT BOWDOIN COLLEGE HAS TO SAY
John Simoneau, Director of Capital Projects for Bowdoin College explained to Meader that use as described by the code enforcement officer is deemed institutional. Use is to be on weekends from August through October. He claimed that a traffic study done by an engineer hired by Bowdoin indicates Bowdoin’s use would be less than the average homeowner. Bowdoin would not be using utilities, there would be no fireworks, and campfires would be safe.

He added that the study also states that there has not been a high rate of accidents in the Ira Mountain turn off, Route 27, that there are more in the town of Kingfield. There is also no signage on Route 27, or a clear definition of proper road passage to the Bowdoin property in the town’s 1989 town ordinance.

When asked about the proposed lodge as a future project on that property, Simoneau stated it was an “aspirational challenge,” but is not part of this application and is not a priority right now. It was not ruled out as a future project, however, and admitted it would be ideal.

WHAT BOWDOIN COLLEGE LEGAL COUNCIL HAS TO SAY
Juliette Browne, council for Bowdoin focused on the criteria of the moratorium. She indicated there is no burden on public facilities and existing laws aren’t sufficient to prevent serious public harm. The existing ordinance does address a number of issues in question and has standards that allow the Board to consider traffic safety and impact. The Board asked for a traffic analysis and a Bowdoin provided one.

She stated that the maximum number of vehicle trips into the campsite at peak use times is 11 including seven vans and staff vehicles during limited summer and fall months. There would be winter use, but it would be less. The traffic study could not find a problem with increased traffic but she acknowledged there is a safety concern. The question is whether the PB needs to amend the existing ordinances to address incremental traffic as there would be with this project, that would allow the board to impose conditions.

The toughest issue is that this will not be solved by the PB and SB, Browne continued. It will require a process that includes the MDOT, the town, county commissioners, road associations, and the owner of the bridge. Until these groups come together the issue will not be solved.

A related issue in the moratorium is that it would apply to “transient overnight recreational developments.” These developments are defined in the petition as a form of organized camping and recreation and accommodation facilities similar to but distinct from those associated with a campground. Browne pointed out that definition is circular and vague. She asked if it applies to short term rentals, camps, seasonal cottage, etc. or other types of recreational facilities. It might not even apply to the Bowdoin project. “The fatal flaw is that the petition does not have a definition that reasonable people can all agree it applies to,” she concluded.

THE RIGHT OF THE PETITION TO GO TO A TOWN VOTE
During a public comment period, Jon Gause, representing the Claybrook Road Association, brought two concerns to the SB.

The first was defining a petition. A petition in Maine with the required number of signatures, asking for a moratorium is the will of the people and must therefore go to a town meeting for a vote.

Town council Meader injected that in her interpretation, the SB has the right to deny submitting a petition to the voters for any number of reasons including “reasonable refusal” because the board does not consider it meets the requirements.

Gause, an attorney himself, countered that the state statute 30-A 4522 assures petitioners that with enough signatures, “the municipal officers SHALL either insert a particular article in the next warrant issued or SHALL within 60 days call a special town meeting.”

He added that his concern is that the town would be short circuiting the right of the people who signed the petition. He continued that the conditions of the moratorium also state “reasonably foreseeable” as a key clause to overburdening conditions as they might exist in the future not just currently, including the condition of the bridge when all lots have been built up. He stated the 2023 traffic study Bowdoin is relying on is not only outdated, but states a two-lane bridge which can be built at considerable cost, along with turning lanes on Route 27 which are not possible unless the state blasts a ledge, must be built for safety reasons when the area meets the to 87 built lots limit.

The PB allows for 115 lots in the area. Currently at 67 built lots, Bowdoin would represent 28 built lots at peak capacity with traffic coming and going during time of use representing 95 built lots.

“Reasonably foreseeable” safety concerns also have to be taken into account at peak times which would allow 90 people using the campsite at one time. This, Gause added, is when accidents will occur.

SERIOUS PUBLIC HARM
Serious public harm is the second concern Gause brought up and includes accidents on and burdening of increased traffic now and in the future on Route 27. Public harm may also include harm to property values, living next to a fraternity situation with little over site of drinking, partying, etc., of college students regardless of school policy, which would directly affect homeowners right next to the Bowdoin property.

The proper way forward, Gause concluded, is for the SB to honor what the state statute states, and allow town residents to hear comments and debate around the warrant at a town meeting, and to finally vote for or against the moratorium.

LEGAL COUNCIL FOR IRA MOUTNAIN AREA RESIDENTS SPEAKS
Alex Drew Weatherbee, council for the Ira Mountain associations and present via Zoom, redirected the focus of the meeting back to the moratorium itself, and the purpose of the meeting which is to evaluate the moratorium as written. She proceeded to read the 30-A section 4356 again.

She stated that a moratorium, like the one before the SB, is a direct response to the holes found in the town zoning ordinances during the PB approval process. The purpose of the moratorium is not to outright say no or yes to the Bowdoin project but to ensure that the town is properly equipped to evaluate and review these types of projects now and in the future.

The moratorium allows the town time to go back to the drawing board and ensure the ordinance is tightened up and ready to evaluate these sorts of projects and to flag a few more issues that are brought up in continued conversations.

She also stated that though Bowdoin is working on road negotiations it does not address the concerns that were flagged in the ordinance as written, and that would need to be enforced and applied.

Additionally, the moratorium does not necessarily apply to the housing development, it currently applies to “transient overnight recreation,” which is not covered in the ordinances. The definition of campground is defined as any premises established for temporary overnight accommodation with or without shelter, such as a tent and recreational vehicle for which a fee is charged. No fee is charged for what Bowden has proposed or with any other group who comes in and wishes to build something like it. In a commercial recreation facility, there is also a fee charged.

Additionally, there is a lot of comment about the road and the bridge. The Ira Mountain area is basically zoned more or less as an island, and the only way to get to the island is via the bridge. This moratorium allows time to spend 180 days resetting ordinances that ensure the bridge is covered. Otherwise, this is kicked down the road when another project similar to the Bowdoin proposal will again appear before the PB. She advised taking advantage of the 180 days to address the bridge issue.

RESIDENT COMMENT
The traffic safety study sited by Bowdoin concerns residential traffic, but not commercial traffic by Bowdoin. It was also brought up that the DOT will not currently allow school buses to stop to pick up students on Route 27 in that area for safety reasons.

Another issue broached was that the Bowdoin lot is currently zoned as a R1. The Bowdoin site is only 400’ wide and surrounded by residential homes and would the SB take that into consideration. There is an association committee working on the bridge safety issue currently and has been for years with no solution right now.

In response, Bowdoin Council Brown stated that denying Bowdoin this project does not fix the safety issue on the bridge, but as the resident on the bridge committee stated, it does compound it.

DECISION TIME POSTPONED ONE WEEK
Issues presented to the Select Board are not generally decided the same night, and all members present decided to take one week to CONDUCT THEIR OWN research, sit down with their own thoughts, and work with the town lawyer in order to make a good decision. The SB will present their decision May 26, 2026, at 5:00 pm on whether to allow the town to vote on the moratorium or not.

FUTURE CONCERNS
Hawkes added the PB is being asked to create perfect paper for the whole town. Gause added that time is important to retroactivity. Meader added that If the PB approves the Bowdoin project with conditions, there is only a 45-day period when a new ordinance would be retroactive which does not give the planning board enough time go through the entire the application and deal with all of the legal issues that have been recently introduced. Meader stated that the PB’s job is to put blinders on and look at the project only. Hawkes stated the PB may decide to hire an independent traffic engineer.

The moratorium request cannot be put on this year’s town warrant. Targett stated it could be added but it would be confusing. She stated a special town meeting would be better. Hawkes added that updating an ordinance requires voter approval also and would require a town meeting.

Weatherbee concluded that a 180 moratorium can be extend in order to allow time for the PB to go through all of the issues, and that Bowdoin could still introduce their project.

05/20/2026

KINGFIELD CARES DEALS WITH YAYS AND NAYS
OF MSAD 58 IN NEGOTIATIONS

KINGFIELD, MAINE - In attendance at the May 12, 2026 meeting were MSAD 58 Negotiations Sub-Committee: Laura Columbia (Superintendent), Jessie Stinchfield, Mary Lecours, Brad Orbeton, Danielle Vachon-Chair and Jennifer Pooler (Business Manager).

The Kingfield School Options Committee Negotiations Team included Martha Witham, Kim Jordan, Mathias Ringle and Kathy Houston

Note: The Kingfield committee had asked to meet in Executive Session. MSAD 58 denied the request.

The Kingfield committee asked the MSAD 58 committee what they would be willing to offer Kingfield as an option to stay in the district. More specifically: How could the committee work together to get a guarantee to keep the school open and adjust cost sharing so Kingfield is paying a fairer proportion.

The reply was that they had not had time to consider an answer. MSAD Business Manager Jennifer Pooler asked why the committee hadn’t asked this years ago. Kim Jordan replied that the Kingfield Select Board was told by a DOE (Dept. of Education) representative two years ago that any change in cost sharing would require other towns to agree to pay more and would require legislation and was not likely to happen. The Kingfield committee stated a response to this question would give Kingfield community members another option to vote on.

The committee also asked when MSAD 58 expected to know what the final reconfiguration options would be. Members were told MSAD 58 is trying to work with seeking an architect to get an unbiased opinion; bids for the architect The architect's bids are due Friday. SAD 58 stated this would be discussed further with the entire school board at the next board meeting.

NEGOTIATION OF INDIVIDUAL TERMS
The table below reflects what was discussed. Percentages from Laura Columbia's contract and Outstanding Debt are based on the proportional percentage Kingfield currently pays to MSAD 58.