Dear Editor:

The first budget proposed by the Board of our Regional School Unit was $27.7 million.  At the open budget meeting, the voters present cut that to $25.9 million.  Then at the June 9 referendum, all eight towns voted against the $25.9 million budget by three to one.

The RSU Board has now come back with a second budget of $26.6 million. That’s right; they came back with a budget bigger than the one we turned down at referendum.  They point out that the $26.6 is only $686,384 more than last year’s combined budgets for the eight towns.

I for one like to compare a budget request against what it actually cost the prior year, rather than comparing it with what was estimated it would cost. Comparing an estimate with an estimate is not very conclusive in my book.

With that in mind, I would like to point out that last year’s budgets (estimates) for the eight towns totaled $25.9 million.  At the July 18 RSU meeting, we were told that the carry forward (unused balance) from last year’s budget was $1.4 million.  Unless there were other funds from somewhere that indicates that the school systems were actually run last year for a combined cost of $24.5 million.

The Board’s new request of $26.6 million is therefore $2.1 million more than what it actually cost to run the schools last year.  What they are asking for is approval to spend over two million dollars more than was spent last year.  That's an increase in spending of 8.6% -Wow.

With declining State subsidies and a declining student enrollment it blows my mind that they want to spend $2.1 million more than what it cost last year to run the schools.

I simply cannot support that increase in spending.

Also, at the July 18 RSU meeting, I asked if the proposed budget included funds to continue paying for the Wiscasset teachers health insurance as presently specified in their contract which expires on August 31, 2009.  The answer I got was "yes." If those contract provisions are in fact extended, we could end up paying 100% of the cost for single subscribers and 93% for dependent coverage.

I also cannot support this in view of what’s happening throughout the
country with insurance costs.

If you can afford the higher property taxes that will result from the increase in spending requested and the decrease in State subsidies you’re all set.   Plenty of school connected people will turn out to vote in support of the proposed budget.

On the other hand, if you feel the increase in spending and free insurance is not justified, you had better go vote on July 28.  If this budget passes, stand by for a hefty tax increase.  I know it’s a pain to go vote more than once on an issue but we have to stick to it to get something more reasonable.  Hopefully this budget will fail like the last one did then we can vote one more time on a lower number.

Dick Grondin

Dear Editor:

Is a massive, $2 billion pumped storage energy facility a good idea for Wiscasset?

To begin to answer that question for ourselves we attended the  initial public presentation by Riverbank Power at the Primary  School.  Before the meeting we boarded a school bus for a tour of the proposed facility’s locations off Birch Point Road and at the Mason Station.

To our surprise our guide was none other than the CEO of Riverbank, John Douglas, who proceeded to make an energetic,  informative presentation to his cramped audience.  As we bounced along Douglas explained why Wiscasset is at the top of Riverbank’s  list of sites for five massive pumped storage facilities the Canadian  company plans to build in the next 10 years.

Wiscasset's assets  include:  1) massive transmission lines still in place from Maine  Yankee; 2) abundant water in the Back River, 3) existing rail and  barge facilities, and most important, 4) a potentially supportive community. 

These factors, according to Douglas, make our town just about perfect as a site.  He went on to explain that Maine’s growing wind power capability will need lots of storage capacity in order to be most efficient.  Furthermore, Wiscasset's coastal setting would be an ideal storage site for power generated by proposed offshore wind farms.

Back in the gym at the Primary School we heard from an impressive  panel of scientists, mostly from Maine, who will be involved in the permit applications and final design. Their message was that there are many environmental issues to investigate, and that they will be driven by Riverbank’s mantra: "Don't cheat the science."   Riverbank pledges thorough studies of all potential impacts of a pumped storage facility above and below ground, on shore and in the river, during both construction and long term operation. 

The results of those tests should address the concerns of local residents and help them decide whether Riverbank fits here.

John Douglas is clearly hoping that Wiscasset will embrace his project. We came away feeling very positively about this complex and expensive proposal.  Riverbank might be a perfect fit for our community.

Kayda and Sam Selby

Wiscasset

To the Editor:

I am writing as a teacher, former school board member, member of the regional planning committee, and most importantly a citizen of the new RSU to ask you to support the school budget approved by citizens attending the town meeting on July 18.

This is the second round of the budget process and is the culmination of much work on the part of the new RSU school board and administrators in the district. This budget may not be perfect and we may not understand all its complexities, but I believe it is a reasonable budget, based on the educational needs of our collective communities.

More importantly, I have tremendous respect for all the people who have worked on this budget. I know they want to do what is best for both the young people we are educating, and the taxpayers who are looking for fiscal restraint. I trust their judgment and their intentions.

It is time for us to move ahead in the consolidation process. By passing a budget, we allow the real work of consolidation to begin—collectively educating students from eight communities while looking for efficiencies that will make this process as cost effective as possible. Please join me in voting "yes" on this budget, either by absentee ballot or at your town polling place on Tuesday, July 28.

Barbara Baston

Alna

 Dear Editor:

Saturday's education budget meeting in Windsor set a budget that many will not be able to afford.   The end result for each of the eight member towns in the RSU will be a 17.7% increase ($2,225,130) in the funds they need to raise in property taxes to pay for the increase in the budget. As most towns expend about 60% (or more) of their town budgets on education, the result will be about a 10% increase in property tax bills for most residents.  With many residents hit hard by the recession, and having less income, this increase will be painful.  For the RSU, there was no pain to be shared.  All articles passed with no cuts.

Inexplicably, the actual costs expended in the last fiscal year (ending in June) could not or would not be shared with the voters on Saturday.  Consequently, the budget approved was presented as increases relative to the budget for last year, which was developed well over a year ago.  The only clue provided to what was actually spent last year was the amount that was conservatively estimated to be left unspent (the "carryover") from last year, which was reported to be $1,447,954 excluding carryover from two years ago.  That means a maximum of $24,479,162 was spent last year, and likely less.  For this year the request was $26,613,497 or $2,134,335 more than what we just spent.  With declining enrollment, lower administration costs and other expected savings thru consolidation, it just doesn't make sense to be increasing the authorization by 8.72% over last year’s estimated spending rate.

This is especially true since the budget presented had been credited with $436,895 in federal stimulus funds which are temporary.  Without those funds, the real local taxpayer obligation would have been $2,662,025 or 21% higher than last year.  The approved budget now forms a new spending baseline and, with further State supports cuts expected next year - and stimulus funds going away, even more property tax increases can be expected.  Taxpayers just can't afford it!

Dennis Dunbar

Westport Island

Spiraling school expenses to create spike in property taxes! – Your ‘NO’ vote on can block it!

In years past, educators turned out overwhelmingly at Wiscasset’s Town Meeting to vote for higher and higher school budgets, regardless of economic circumstances or declining student populations. When secret ballot referendum voting began, the tide turned. Educators still dominated the town meeting, but voters began voting against bloated budgets.

In the upcoming school year, school population will decline in the first year of a state mandated school consolidation program that was supposed to create efficiencies and reduce education expenses. For those two reasons, most taxpayers expected the 2009-2010 School Budget to be smaller than the one for 2008-2009.

The new School Committee had other ideas, and came up with a budget that ballooned by $2 million. In addition, because the State contribution was cut by $1.3 million, property taxpayers would have to come up with $3.3 million additional dollars to put fewer kids on the same buses they rode to school in last year, deliver them to the same school they attended last year, and sit in the same classrooms with the same teachers who taught at the school last year.

Nothing was changing but the budget!

The School Committee made no corresponding commitment to higher student performance to justify the increase. As a result, angry taxpayers trimmed the proposed budget from $27.2 million to $25.9 million at a public hearing on June 2. The approved figure of $25.9 million was still higher than 2008-2009 by $400,000, and would burden local taxpayers with an additional $1.7 million because of the State failure to honor its $1.3 million obligation.

On June 9, in secret ballot voting, the budget was rejected by voters by a ratio of 3 to 1. It was a landslide. Speculation is that taxpayers voted against the budget because they thought it was still too high, and educators voted against it because they thought it was too low.

Last Saturday, July 18, the School Committee presented another new budget at another public hearing. This budget was for $26.6 million, which was $600,000 lower than the original $27.2 million budget presented in June, but $700,000 higher than the budget that was turned down by voters on June 9, and fully $1.1 million higher than the budget for 2008-2009.

Educators were determined that this budget would not be cut, and stacked the hearing to approve it as presented. Their numbers dominated the hearing, and voted heavily in favor of each article as it was presented. Taxpayers’ voices were insignificant in the face of the overwhelming presence of educators, and many taxpayers left early, seeing the writing on the wall. The proposed $26.6 million budget was approved at the meeting.

Now, on July 28, the polls will open again for yet another secret ballot on the budget. Educators will rally every vote they can possibly muster. Will taxpayers turn out in equal numbers? It is hard to say. In the face of a severe recession that is seriously affecting virtually all private sector wage earners, reduced enrollment, and efficiencies supposedly created by consolidation, it seems logical that taxpayers will turn out in droves to reject an even higher budget than they rejected a month ago.

Your vote on July 28, will determine whether you think getting the same thing your kids got last year is worth an additional $1.1 million dollars. And, don’t forget, the School Committee is also expecting local taxpayers to pick up an additional $1.3 million the State is failing to contribute, so local taxpayers will have to come up with an additional total of $2.4 million.

In my opinion the decision is whether you want to vote for or against an arrogant government unit that is so out of touch with everyday people that they expect approval of foolishness.

Hopefully the turnout for both sides will be heavy. This is the way a democracy works. We’ll all know the answer on July 29.

Please vote on July 28. – Alan Bebout