Don’t read this if you’ll earn 10% more next year

Scarborough voters are being asked to approve on Tuesday an 8.2 percent increase from last year, nearly $3,000,000 in additional property taxes.?? If your income increases by 10 percent you will stay even with the proposed School Department’s 8.2 percent request and the resulting 5.7 percent increase in your property taxes.??

Many taxpayers in our town are seeing their income increase by 0 percent or at best 2 or 3 percent over two/three years. That is today’s reality.??

The council has done a good job of keeping municipal department budgets in check – making tough line item decisions and overall funding levels. This has not been the case when they have set the budget for the School Department. The School Department expenditures have grown by 20.2 percent over the past five years (2010-2015). The council is responsible for this unsustainable level of growth. The Council has approved and 8.2 percent increase for 2016.?? Who in our community has seen a 20 percent increase in their income during the past five years? Who will receive a 10 percent raise this year? In business or your household budget, you cannot continue to increase spending year after year at a rate faster than the growth of your income; it’s Economics 101.

??This is your last chance to control YOUR 2016 tax bill. Vote no on the school budget.

Larry Hartwell

Scarborough’

Scarborough could have anticipated reduced subsidy

Considering all the angst over the sizable increase in the Scarborough 2015 school budget, and all the shenanigans that occurred leading up to its approval by the Town Council, it seems the problem could have been solved with planning.

The dependence on money from the state or from the feds is like expecting mommy and daddy to buy you a new Mercedes every year when they can only afford a Ford Fiesta. And, not a new one every year!

One would hope that when a person is elected, appointed or hired for a position the first thing they would want to do is familiarize themselves with the rules and requirements of the job. Therefore, when an individual is elected to school board learning how the state school funding formula (GPA) affects their town is at the top of the list. Sure, no one said this will be a piece of blueberry cake, but as one would expect, difficult things come with the job.

The GPA is a mirror of the basic tenet of socialism, or as it is now called, tax the wealthy. The rich can afford it so they should pay more, right? Well, that is of course until you are considered rich. Which is the case for Scarborough compared with most towns around Maine. The formula takes into consideration a number of factors including school enrollment (in other words when enrollment decreases your allowance goes down accordingly), property values, etc.

The point is, the decision makers knew, or should have known, Scarborough was in line for a decrease in school funding. Planning for that decrease is the only logical course of action, but no, instead they decided they can spend excessively to “save our schools.” The taxpayers will have to pay more, that’s all, simple as that.

What are we saving our schools from? Statistically have they been significantly improved over the last five years while the taxpayer experienced tax increases of 28.8 percent? Did test scores go up dramatically?

Remember, property taxes can only be increased at the local level. Whining and blaming the state is futile. Proper planning would ensure that all parties involved could get a fair shake.

Jan Love

Scarborough

Something is wrong with this picture

A member of the Scarborough Board of Education stood before the Scarborough Town Council holding three school books complaining about their age and outdated status. I asked the board chair “Who is responsible for ensuring the school books are kept current and accurate?” It appears each department, school principal, staff, the director of curriculum and superintendent recommend to the board which books should be replaced. So for the last 15 years or so this group of people has not authorized new books, yet complains the books are outdated?

We all heard in the town budget forum April 29 about how we compare to our cohorts when figuring per-pupil costs in education. We were told our cohorts were Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, Gorham, MSAD 51 (Cumberland/North Yarmouth), RSU 5 (Freeport), RSU14 (Windham/Raymond), RSU 21 (Kennebunk), South Portland, Westbrook and Yarmouth. Susan Beaudoin, Maine state director of school finance and operations, tells us our cohorts should be Sanford, South Portland, RSU 57/SAD 57 (Massabesic), RSU 60 (Noble), RSU 10 (Mountain Valley), RSU 14 (Windham), and RSU 18 (Messalonskee). Please note that only two of the cohorts listed in the budget forum match what the state director of school finance and operations tells us we should be using. Why are we using a different cohort group?

At first glance, it appears we are attempting to compare ourselves to more “glamorous and affluent” communities, instead of comparing ourselves to what the state says we should be doing. If we compare ourselves to the State Department of Education per-pupil operating cost data as of April 2014, only South Portland and Mountain Valley exceed our cost. We are well ahead of all others in our cohort group.

Now the question becomes, “What do we do with this information?” I suggest we vote down the school budget until we find out why the people responsible for the lack of current school books are made to answer to the public, until we are given the correct information on the state cohorts list, and until the school budget matches a 3 percent affordable increase.

Michael B. Turek

Scarborough