Budget Vote – Have Your Say

image

The RSU Budget Meeting and Vote will be held THURSDAY JULY 30 KATAHDIN MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL @7PM

Here is a golden opportunity to take control of your money and put your Vote behind it.

Many thanks to our readers for their heightened interest in our website and for your comments – whatever your position on the pressing issues we face. 

Advertisements

5 responses to “Budget Vote – Have Your Say

  1. I have heard a lot of talk of how the rsu haven’t saved money. So I did a little research.. FY 11 budget $9, 203,803 FY 16 $9,428,668. This is an increase of $224,865 over the 5 years.. An average of $22,500 per year per side. This is with a $185,000 roofing project. So without that project it would be a $39,865 over 5years.. An increase of $19,933 per side over 5 years.. Do you think you could have maintained katahdin the last 5 years with that increase? Yes we have lost positions which enrollment has a huge part of. Thank you for your time

    Like

    • I would also like to add FY 11 budget at katahdin was $4,400,843.. With teachers paid significantly less which has been rectified

      Like

    • “Do you think you could have maintained Katahdin the last 5 years with that increase? Yes, we have lost positions which enrollment is a part of….”

      I do.

      If the RSU Board can “maintain” ever growing bureaucratic bloat by cutting teachers then surely The reverse can occur.

      All The “sharing” Katahdin and SACS do in an RSU is possible via interlocal agreements or an AOS model of consolidation. The RSU model has a tendency toward cost- shifting and “sharing” is often anything but mutually beneficial.

      We published the numbers you reference on two occasions here.

      Excellence need not cost more and a local board would more readily leverage small school advantages as enrollment declines: teaching principals , consolidating k-12 into KHS and cutting bureaucrats that “oversee” two campuses neither needed on their own. Consultants…

      Sharing is lovely but we need two boards. Children are never well served by attending a school run by people who want it closed.

      Local boards are more accountable and closer to kids and taxpayers. They make better decisions.

      It is easy to assume alternatives to an RSU model are more expensive. Thank you for questioning that assumption ; for your time and interest.

      Like

  2. Sorry I was on my phone therefore came through as anonymous.. Growing bureaucratic bloat meaning? We have one less superintendent, as of right now one less principal and sharing accounting staff..Again I know that word “sharing”.. Ok if we have separate boards what makes you think that is going to change anything. Each town has a reps now.. How has the “sharing not be mutually beneficial? What does Sacs have that Katahdin doesn’t? Also small school has been quoted a lot if we consolidate we are still a small school.. I’m not trying to be facetious I really am trying to understand.. I have continued to crunch the numbers and this is the path Katahdin was on.. FY 07–$4,006,426 FY 08 $4,343,530 FY09$4,519,552 FY 10 $4,510,020 FY 11 $4,400,843 thats a 4 year increase of $98,604 if it was doable why wasn’t it being done? I don’t have the figures for Sacs yet but I bet it was a similar path. I do agree however busing is going to be an issue and I’m not sure how to rectify that. I am trying to look at all the issues. I am curious as to what the mill rate is in benedicta? I do know we here in Island Falls can not afford anymore increases. People are loosing their homes now.. A increase of $19,933 spread out over the district is something people can afford. Thank You for your time

    Like

    • Oh that’s OK. I think it’s wonderful that you are willing to share your name though I understand and respect people’s decisions not to.

      When I refer to bureaucratic bloat I am talking about expenditures that people have been saying they want cut – positions neither school needed before the RSU, way above average salaries for people who never see a child, consultants travel stipends etc. Their taxes are not only climbing as fast as ever their children have lost so much from their program of study that it isn’t an apples to apples comparison. That is NOT what the RSU law promised.

      Kids paid dearly to keep those numbers from rising faster.

      We are paying more for less.

      Sharing a Superintendent, accounting – administrative costs generally is a very well supported idea and has the potential to save. It is not necessary or even advisable to do so in an RSU.

      Again, children paid a heavy price to make it appear as though costs slowed. Angry people who see money wasted haven’t the voice to sway a large regional Board the way they would a local one.

      Closing Katahdin and putting all the money into SACS will cost … The “bussing issue” cannot be rectified and represents a steep financial and human cost . Those costs do not fall evenly on everyone – consolidation does not save money but you change who gets it.

      This time there is nothing left to cut to make the numbers look better. Communities will rescind financial support as their home values local economies and perceived benefits decline.

      It is all very well documented.

      I have parents who pay high taxes in Sherman, and do not want to see them overburdened anymore than I want to see our children shortchanged.

      Thank you for all of your time and interest; and genuine questioning of prevailing assumptions.

      Like

We want to know what YOU think! Post a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s