Voicing opposition to the proposed school budget, the Standish Town Council on Tuesday issued an order unanimously recommending a “no” vote for the 2005/06 SAD 6 budget at the June 14 referendum.

The order, submitted by Councilor Dolores Lymburner, cites Question 1A, approved by the voters in 2004, and LD1, the state’s four-year implementation plan that authorizes the state to pay 55 percent of the cost of local education statewide.

By voting for the order, the council is publicly opposing the school board’s use of a $3 million increase in state funding that SAD 6 will receive this year. Standish councilors would rather the district use those dollars for property tax relief. Voters will either heed the council’s advice or choose to approve the SAD 6 budget at June 14’s election where the SAD 6 budget will appear as a referendum question.

“Even though the increase is only $62,000 to Standish,” said Lymburner, “there’s no way they can come to me and justify that spending. And the other towns [in MSAD 6] are getting only small decreases. They should have gotten a lot more of a decrease.”

According to Standish Town Manager Gordon Billington, when the council supported the 1A referendum, they expected to see tax relief for the citizens of Standish, which pay 44 percent of the total SAD 6 budget. Their vote to oppose the school budget reflects their feeling that tax relief was not taken into consideration by the School Board.

When questioned about the council’s position, School Board Chair and Standish representative Bruce Avery said, “It’s disappointing. We went through the budget process to develop a needs-based budget. We analyzed it line by line. It was labor-intensive.”

But the SAD 6 Board did not approve it unanimously. Three of the five Standish representatives, Michael Delcourt, David Hopkins, and Jeff Richardson, voted against the 2005/06 budget.

Billington pointed out that, in fairness to the School Board, the law does not lend itself to tax relief even though it is promoted as such. The way it is applied locally, it expects the towns to spend at a certain level.

Standish Finance Director Richard Lagarde feels that the funding model has changed because of LD1. Although projections at this point are subject to change according to the total property valuation as determined by the assessor, he believes that Standish could see the tax rate go down.

He is still waiting for the final determination on the Homestead Exemption, which is funded 50 percent by the state of Maine and 50 percent by taxpayers. The exemption could raise the tax rate slightly. But the mill rate comprised of the school portion has dropped a total of $9,148. Instead of .56 per mill, it’s projected to be .51.

There’s also the municipal portion, which has dropped by $100,000, a decrease of .23 per mill.

“If projections stay the same for our total valuation,” said Lagarde, “the mill rate would go down and accordingly, they [the Standish taxpayers] would see a lower tax bill.”

But Lymburner feels strongly about the need for a lower budget: “I’ve always felt you need to be fiscally responsible when you’re in a position to have charge over the budget.”

And Avery defends his position: “As a school board, we have 4,000 kids in five towns that we are required to help not only to meet MEA and No Child Left Behind standards but to become well-educated, well-rounded citizens. That’s our job. That’s what’s entrusted to us.”

Copy the Story Link