Sheepscot Valley Regional School Unit 12 Superintendent Greg Potter presented an approach to tackling the fiscal year 2011 education budget during the Thursday night Board of Directors meeting in the Whitefield Elementary School gymnasium. Board members also unanimously approved sending a resolution to the State asking for the promise of 55 percent funding under the 2005 enacted LD 1 legislation.
In other news, the board recognized a Wiscasset Middle School student for his fundraising efforts to help the people of Haiti who are still suffering from the effects of a devastating earthquake that struck the country in January (see related story, “Student recognized for Haiti relief efforts”).
“I think we should stick with the vision statement,” Potter said, starting his presentation of what is intended to become an effort to maintain current educational standards and cut costs to taxpayers.
Potter’s initial spending target for FY 2011 is $24,900,000. This figure would be about five percent less than the current year ($26,109,946).
Part of the reason for the target budget reduction can be attributed to state funding. Governor John Baldacci has decided to put an additional $5 million for general purpose aid for education statewide, according to Potter. The board should expect additional changes as time progresses.
While the additional funding works to cushion the blow to taxpayers, there will still be less state money available down the road. Potter said the proposed state share for FY 2011 is $10,764,050 for RSU 12. This is $1,190,765 less than the current year, a 10 percent reduction is State funding and over 21 percent in a two-year period, he said.
The reason Potter gave board members for the proposed reduction is the State revenue shortfall. The State valuation of property is up eight percent over the current year, there is a decline in the average number of students served (three percent statewide) and there is an expected state increase in local mil rates for school unit towns.
The target $24.9 million budget calls for cuts and reduced work hours in teaching and staff positions. It calls for elimination of some summer programs, contingency and additional food service funds.
The plan asks for increased meal rates to make them consistent for all students in the RSU and a per-pupil cost accounting formula for supplies and equipment. Potter said they could realize significant changes from these changes.
The plan also calls for the transfer of up to 11 middle school students from Somerville to Windsor Elementary. The transfer would allow for the creation of a sixth grade “Day Treatment” special education program at Somerville Elementary School. Potter said such a program would be another potential revenue source from schools outside the RSU.
Consolidation of a Life Skills program with Windsor and Palermo and reductions in vendor contracts for fuel oil, electricity and insurance are other potential saving sources for the RSU, according to the plan.
Potter stressed the proposed action plan is a work in progress and is not set in stone. Finance Committee members encouraged other members of the board to come to the central office to review paperwork associated with the budget. Potter said his presentation has been posted on the RSU 12 website (www.svrsu.org).
“Year-end reports may be filed (with the DOE) on the basis of the last adopted, but not approved fiscal year 2010 budget,” Nault states in a memorandum to the board and the RSU is using the $26,109,947 as its operating budget for the school year.
He said the number being reported to the state is the current operating budget until the numbers are formalized. The DOE suggested the RSU board concentrate on the 2011 budget.
Nault presented a financial spreadsheet of all eight RSU member towns, showing revenues, expenditures and fund balances for 2009. It illustrates the variances where expenditures exceeded revenues and vice-versa.
Nault provided a summary of the current year’s budget. Eight months in, the RSU “continues to project a generally favorable end-of-year variance”, where 59.2 percent of revenue receipts have been collected ($15,480,386) and posted expenses equal nearly 62.7 of the budgeted amount ($16,361,292).
Nault stipulated, however, MaineCare income is in arrears of projections at 45.6 percent of the expected amount. The RSU had to draw on a Revenue Anticipation Note, as the checking account showed a negative balance of $121,310.
As board members deal with such shortages in an operating budget, residents in Alna, Westport Island, Wiscasset and other areas within the RSU maintain criticism of the unofficial 2010 budget.
Alna resident Ralph Hilton spoke before the board during a comment period, saying the cost sharing formula among RSU towns is unfair.
“This formula needs to be addressed,” Hilton said, adding the towns ought to pay based on a per pupil cost. “I believe the board has the power to amend this with the permission of the commissioner of education and review this funding policy every year. So, why are we going to be stuck with paying $9000 per student in Alna and $3000 per student in Windsor? It’s kind of an unfair setup.”
In response to Hilton’s comments, a board member said they would review the budget throughout the year. Board member Lester Sheaffer said the percentages in place were based on prior year funding to set up the formula. Dismissing the idea the funding formula involved state valuation of property, Sheaffer offered a simple explanation for town’s allocation of education funds.
He said the board took all the money Alna raised in taxes for education in the 2008-2009 school year for their share. The money included the state allocation, local additional funding, any surplus or reserve funds the town put toward education. The school unit took this money and put it together with all of the funds from the other member towns. Alna’s share is the percentage of amount allocated, Sheaffer said.
In 2005, the State Legislature enacted the State spending limit law, so named “LD 1”, which was intended to save property taxpayer money and increase the State’s share of education funding.
A discussion ensued following comments from a board member playing the devil’s advocate and seeking answers as to the State’s reasoning behind not keeping up its part of the funding bargain.
Remarking on how the State is not gathering revenue its budget is based on, board member Hilary Holm of Whitefield said, “If they don’t have the money to pay 55 percent of the total cost of education, how do we expect them to do it?”
According to the state’s website, the growth rate of property taxes was lower than before the law was enacted, but 87 percent of school units exceeded their spending limits.
As mentioned on the LD 1 Progress Report on the Maine State Planning Office web page, “Since 2005, the 29 percent increase in the State’s share of funding has not been met by a commensurate reduction in local spending.”
Board member Christopher Johnson of Somerville said he agreed the State meeting the 55 percent is the challenge, but reduced funding places the burden on local taxpayers. If the State does not find an equitable way to raise revenue, school officials are stuck with the difficulty of raising education funds at the local level, from property owners.
“I feel they should take that responsibility,” he said. “(And) use a more equitable source of revenue than property tax.”
