To the editor:
The RSU 50 board has worked diligently to prepare a budget that would be accepted by the voters. The budget, prepared by the board, included cuts of $250,000, all of which, to my understanding, were in the regular education line of the warrant. The warrant for the budget is a complicated document with 10 different line items relating to expenditures.
I made a motion to amend the regular education line by adding $60,000 to the amount recommended by the RSU 50 board. The following represents my perspective in regard to the $60K increase in that line item.
Sixty thousand dollars represents .66 percent of the proposed $9,075,716 budget, less than 1 percent! While I understand that a number of communities are facing an increase in local property taxes, it is most important to note those increases are not due to an increase in funding for local schools. The increase is due to a greater burden being born by the local property tax payer and a cut in the state allocation of $278,623.
In fact, the budget for FY12 is more than $150,000 less than the FY11 budget, after the $60K increase approved by voters at the budget meeting last Wednesday evening. Considering the cost of heating fuel is up by $1 per gallon, the cost of diesel for busses is up by $1 per gallon, health insurance costs have increased by 6.5 percent and the reduction in state funds is so severe, it is astounding that the board was able to submit a budget that was lower than the previous year.
Understanding that the RSU 50 board has sole authority for determining where and how funds are expended, in my motion to amend the budget I asked the board to consider reinstating funds for the gifted and talented program (GT) as well as providing additional resources for English. The state encourages all districts and RSUs to have a GT program. In fact, the state reimburses the RSU through the EPS funding formula for approximately 100 percent of the prior year’s expenditure. Last year we were reimbursed at 101.6 percent of what was spent on GT in FY10. Should the RSU fail to fund a GT program, we will lose the state subsidy for GT. In my view, this is not in the interests of our students or taxpayers.
Consider, what is the impact of the $60K increase on the average taxpayer in the RSU? The following figures are not meant to be specific but are representative to the best of my knowledge. The average taxpayer with a $100,000 property would see an increase of $18 a year over the budget recommended by the RSU 50 board. Patten and Sherman, two communities hardest hit by increases to local tax payers (again not an increase in the budget but a decrease) would see an increase of approximately $19 and $18 respectively. The communities of Crystal, Hersey, Island Falls, Merrill and Moro will actually see a net decrease to their local assessment.
I urge all voters to support the revised RSU 50 budget. More importantly, I urge all voters to attend board meetings and educate themselves in regards to how local schools are funded.
Russell Beauchemin
Smyrna
