Well, friends, it didn’t take long to get back into the swing of things after the summer doldrums.  At their October 6 meeting, the School Board approved a new three-year deal with the teachers’ union.  Remember, this contract probably accounts for 40% or more of total school expenses.

We wish we could tell you how much the new contract is going to cost you, but we can’t.  Frankly – and frighteningly — we’re not sure anyone really knows what the total cost of the new contract is.

The cost information wasn’t disclosed at the meeting.  If the Board members had it, they weren’t sharing it with the public.  But we were promised that cost information will be developed by the Superintendent and presented at the next School Board meeting.   Wait, what… the cost of the contract is going to be developed and shared after the School Board unanimously approved it?  That’s weird; in that old-fashioned world we live in, you find out how much something costs before you agree to buy it.   Did we miss a paradigm shift?

So here are a few of the contract details that were unveiled at the School Board meeting:

Again, no costs were mentioned for any of these items.  Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the amount of increase these measures will mean for the “level services” budget over the next three years?

---

Schools end year with $2 mil surplus – Wentworth Windfall, Part 2

Also announced at the October 6 School Board meeting were the preliminary financial results for fiscal year 2016, which ended on June 30.  Turns out it was a good year financially… the schools ended the year with a surplus (or fund balance) of $1,960,000.  Revenues were more or less as budgeted, but expenses were favorable by about $2.2 million.

Usually the schools come in with a favorable expense budget variance in the $400,000 to $500,000 range, but this year it was significantly more.  The main reason – our old friend the Wentworth Windfall!  Will it ever go away? 

[Skip this paragraph if you don’t care about the gory details of the Wentworth Windfall:  The Windfall originated when the Town mistakenly borrowed $ 2.6 million too much to pay for the Wentworth School construction. That excess is being applied to regularly scheduled debt service payments in two parts: (1) The current year budget (Fiscal 2017) includes $1.6 million of the Windfall being applied to regularly scheduled debt service payments.  (2) In Fiscal 2016 (just completed), we also applied about $1.0 million of the excess borrowed funds to regularly scheduled debt service payments.  This amount had not been budgeted in Fiscal 2016 so it appears as a favorable expense variance.]

Bottom line… we taxpayers have already ponied up about $2 million of tax revenue which is available to pay for the coming year’s school budget.  So when the Fiscal 2018 discussions start early next year, don’t forget we’ve already got $2 million in the pot.  Perhaps taxpayer funding can be flat for Fiscal 2018 since we’ve already anted up $2 million with the Wentworth Windfall. 

---

Enrollment update!

Okay, we admit it.  We felt a slight tingle of hopefulness when new superintendent Julie Kukenberger announced the October 1 enrollment numbers at the School Board meeting.  It wasn’t the numbers themselves… it was just the fact that the superintendent was voluntarily informing the public about a key school department statistic.  We hope this was a small inkling of transparencies yet to come.  That would be a most welcome change.

The numbers themselves are fairly unremarkable as the following chart indicates:

So, instead of the growth in enrollment Dr. Entwistle assured us was occurring in Fiscal 2016, we actually lost a handful of students.  Not a big deal from a financial perspective, but it does make us wonder – with the strong housing market Scarborough has experienced in the last year, why is enrollment not increasing at least somewhat?  (And, no, we’re not suggesting that the enrollment projection study done last year be revised and updated.)

Here’s hoping that there will be periodic enrollment updates in the future.  And that the new super will bring a new level of transparency to the school department.

---

School lunch program

Following is an excerpt from current Scarborough High School lunch menu.  Click here for the full month’s menu.

Faithful readers of this blog may recall that the budgeting of the school nutrition program has been a burr under your editor’s saddle for quite some time.  The school lunch program routinely loses more than $200,000 each year.  Yet every year school administration puts forth a budgeted loss of only $25,000 or so.  Every year there is a new, hopeful story – never substantiated by realistic assumptions – of how the program is going to turn around financially.  But it never does.

The just-ended fiscal year was no different: You, dear taxpayer, were told in the budget that the school lunch program was going to require $25,000 of taxpayer funding.  When the books were closed on the year, however, you ended up funding a loss of $237,000.  We sincerely hope this charade will not continue and that the Fiscal 2018 school nutrition budget will provide an honest and realistic assessment of the program’s revenues and expenses.  Now that would be refreshing.

 

---

>>>>>>>>>> Election Season Update <<<<<<<<<<<

School Board:

The two members whose terms are expiring are running – unopposed – for re-election.  Nuf said.

Town Council: 

There are four candidates for the two seats that are up for grabs.  For our money, Annalee Rosenblatt is a no-brainer for one seat.  Annalee has lived in Scarborough for more than 30 years.  Her record of public service to the Town during that period is unparalleled. She served two terms on the School Board, including one year as Board chair.  In addition, she is a long-time member and past chair of the Kiwanis Club and served as the chair of the Scarborough 350 Committee in 2008.

As a professional labor negotiator, Annalee has business skills which will be a significant asset to the Town, especially at budget time.  She was one of the charter members of SMARTaxes (Scarborough Maine Advocates for Reasonable Taxes). 

Annalee is someone we can count on to represent ALL Scarborough taxpayers.  Please take a look at Annalee’s website (click here),  review her extensive qualifications and give her your vote.

---

Early voting has started! 

Vote today at Town Hall.  It’s quick and easy!

---

That’s all for now, folks.  More excitement will surely follow.  Breaking news as it happens.

Be neighborly,

TT Hannah

[Please note that the views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author.]

---

Ahh, those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer!  What a summer it has been!  Now seems like a perfect time for an update on the goings-on at Scarborough’s fantastic beaches.  Part 1 of our beach report follows.

And perhaps surprisingly, this is also a perfect time to highlight the school budget.  How can that be, you may well ask?  It’s the middle of the summer and the planning for next year’s school budget won’t start for months.  No one is paying attention to the school budget.  And that, friends, is the fatal flaw.  Please read on and discover why these dog days of summer are in fact the most critical time for the school budget.

But first, let’s see what’s happening at Higgins Beach this summer…

Higgins Beach where the livin’ is easy… and heavily-policed

As far as police presence is concerned, Higgins Beach must be the safest place in all of Scarborough.  From about 5am until 10pm, you’ll almost always find one of the men or women in blue on site at Higgins.  Sometimes two of them and, now and then, even three officers.  Granted, they’re not all fully decked-out officers in blue-lighted vehicles, but they’re all hooked into the police command center back on Route 1.

It appears that the Higgins Beach neighborhood is even better protected than Prouts Neck.  And the good folks down there at the end of Black Point Road actually pay for a summer police detail.

So what accounts for this heavy police presence at Higgins?  We don’t know for sure, but here’s our guess.  As you may recall, last year’s Higgins neighborhood brouhaha concerned those darned surfers who allegedly (1) woke people up early in the morning slamming their car/van doors, (2) threatened public decency by changing into and out of their wetsuits shielded only by a towel and (3) wantonly urinated all over the place.

Scarborough’s First Parking Meter

The solution to this was the installation of the Town’s first ever parking meter.  It doesn’t cost anything to park (currently), but you need to punch in your license plate number, print out a ticket (which has the time and date on it) and place it on your dashboard.  Then a parking officer can check the time on the ticket and enforce the one-hour limit  on Bayview Avenue parking.

Unfortunately for the anti-fun crowd that led last summer’s campaign against the surfers, the parking meter solution hasn’t been fully effective.   Many surfers continue to use the metered Bayview Avenue spaces while adhering to the one-hour metered limit.  So look for a new effort next year to do away with the parking spaces on Bayview Avenue.  Or some other method of eliminating surfing altogether.  Watch the Ordinance Committee to see what approach the group trying to privatize Higgins Beach will try next.

Beach Vigilantes on Patrol

By the way, the anti-fun crowd continues its relentless war on dogs at Higgins.  Every day – and timed with the tides — the beach vigilantes set up and remove an ugly string of signs along the no-dogs line at the beach, spoiling the view and reminding everyone that fun has its limits.  And if you happen to run afoul of one of the beach rules, one of the vigilantes will let you know in no uncertain terms.  Ambassadors of good will they are not.

LATE BREAKING NEWS…

Speaking of running “a-fowl” of the beach vigilantes, this delicious item just in by way of Facebook:  A woman has recently been spotted walking her pet chicken on Higgins Beach.  Unleashed, no less.  This really got the vigilantes clucking – demanding that the officer on duty check on the ordinance language regarding pet poultry on the beach.  It turns out that biddies and capons have free-range beach privileges under existing law.  We predict an emergency ordinance to deal with this outrage against the decorum and propriety for which Higgins is so well known.

Stay tuned for updates on perambulating pullets!

---

School Budget Update:  Teachers’ Contract is the Invisible Elephant

Perhaps we’re getting a bit carried away with all this elephant imagery.  But the new teachers’ contract that is currently being negotiated is really huge.  Some would say ginormous.  Indeed, it is accurate to say that this is the single most important budget decision the School Board ever makes.  And it’s happening now, totally under the radar.

Here’s the scoop… Salaries and benefits of all employees account for 75% of the total school expense budget.  And our best estimate is that teachers’ salaries account for about half of total salaries.  Which leads to the pretty solid estimate that 38% of the entire school expense budget is determined by the teachers’ contract. 

That means for the current fiscal year, $17.2 million of the total operating budget of $45.9 million is governed by this one contract.  And if the about-to-be-finalized contract is for a three-year term like its predecessor, teacher salary and benefit increases will be locked in through fiscal 2019.

And yet we hear barely a peep about this incredibly important financial transaction.

In summary, there is a lot riding on this one contract – 38% of expense increases for the next three years get locked in when the School Board ratifies this contract, perhaps within the next few weeks.  If a 4 or 5% increase gets agreed to now for each of the next three years, nothing can change that at budget time each year.  Yikes!

One of our Favorite Hollow Arguments

The fact that critical budget decisions for the next three years are being made right now and are sheltered from any public scrutiny (by State law) and are led by a former teacher (School Board member Jackie Perry) leads to one of our all-time favorite disingenuous arguments consistently put forth by school administration and the School Board:  At budget time every year, we are solemnly told that all salary and benefit increases are “fixed costs,” i.e., “there’s nothing we can do about them… they are contractual obligations.”

Yes, that may be true at budget time, but remember who negotiated those contracts – school administration and the School Board.  And those salary and benefit costs are most definitely controllable.  But the only opportunity for controlling them is NOW when the contract is being negotiated.  Let’s hope that Ms. Perry is looking out for the taxpayers when she’s negotiating 38% of the school expense budget for the next three years!

Financial Transparency and Labor Contracts

One of our main complaints –and come to think of it, there have been quite a few — over the past school budget cycles has been the lack of information provided about the financial impact of the various labor contracts… even after they have been signed and become matters of public record.

Here’s the most recent example: At the June 16, 2016 School Board meeting, Ms. Perry reported on the contract with the school maintenance workers that had been finalized that morning and then approved at the Board meeting later in the day.   The gist of Ms. Perry’s report was that everyone was happy with the contract and that a few relatively minor changes were made from the previous contract.  Not a hint of the financial impact of the new three-year deal.  Nor did any of the Board members inquire as to the financial terms of the contract.  It’s almost like the financial impact doesn’t matter as long as “everyone is happy.”   The trouble is, taxpayers don’t have enough information to know if we are happy or not.

We hope that there will be robust disclosure of the financial impact of the teachers’ contract when it is approved at a School Board meeting in the near future. 

And not just the cost-of-living adjustment part of the deal.  That’s another tried and true obfuscation from the School Board playbook.  Sure, the cost-of-living increase may “only” be 1.5% or 2%, but school officials tend to conveniently omit the amount of the  “step increase” that every teacher gets in addition to the COLA increase.  For instance, some teachers under the expiring contract received total annual increases of as much as 7.5%.  (For a more detailed discussion of how the teachers’ contract works, see “Song and Dance Time” in the April 20, 2015 blog post.)  Listen very carefully if someone happens to mention the financial terms of the new teachers’ contract.

As taxpayers, let’s hope that our interests are being looked after in the current negotiations with the teachers’ union.  And that the full financial impact of the new contract will be shared with us once it is signed.

---

Coming soon…

We’re hard at work on the next installment of the summer beach report.  It will be hard to top the chicken-at-Higgins item, but we’ll try.  Of course if the teachers’ contract gets signed, we’ll be all over that.  And who knows what other goodies may emerge from Town Hall during the summer doldrums.

---

Until next time, happy trails!  And stay hydrated!

TT Hannah

 

Well, friends, we made a good showing in the school budget referendum.  Not good enough to defeat what is clearly an irresponsible budget, but still a valiant effort in the face of a concerted effort by some Town leaders to conceal the real impact of the budget – especially in the years ahead.

Thanks to all who voted and especially those who pitched in to help make the case.  It was an excellent effort!  And an energizing one, as well.  We’ll take the lessons learned and use them to work harder for a balanced approach to real estate taxes – one that recognizes the need for BOTH outstanding schools AND affordable tax rates for all Scarborough citizens.  The last part of that equation seems to be lost on most of our current Town Councilors.

For the record, the vote on Question #1, the school budget that requires a 5.5% increase in taxpayer funding, was:

YES – 1,972  (56%)                 NO  — 1,544  (44%)

---

Question #2 was whether we want to continue having voter approval of the school budget for the next three years.  The results were:

YES – 2,334  (67%)                NO  — 1,134  (33%)

Clearly decisive.  But the scary part of the result is that one in three Scarborough residents is perfectly willing to give up the right to vote on the school budget and let the Town Council have the final word.  These are clearly the folks who see no need for an upper limit on school spending.  It must be nice to live in that world.

 

---

Scarborough continued its recent tradition of relatively high voter turnout.  Estimated turnout was around 22%.  Not at all bad compared to Cape Elizabeth’s 13% and SoPo’s 7%.  There’s nothing like a good public debate to get the juices of democracy flowing.

 

---

While we’ll miss the great material the budget season invariably provides, we’ve been saving up some topics that are sure to generate some heat… and hopefully a bit of light as well.

Chief among them is the long-delayed and now timely Scarborough Beaches Update.  Where else can you find intrigue involving real estate moguls, Town leaders, vigilantes, the police and endangered species. Ahh, the tangled webs…

All summer vacations have been canceled for our research staff as they delve into several stories that you won’t hear about anywhere else.  Like what’s really happening in Scarborough’s housing boom and what does it mean for the Town’s future.  And where will the offices for the new assistant town manager and sustainability coordinator be located.  (One rumor is that they’ll be alternating days in a one-person office in the basement of Town Hall.  And that they’ll have a reserved table at Scarborough Grounds on the days they’re not at Town Hall.)

And don’t worry.  We won’t forget the schools.  Which reminds us… don’t miss the School Board workshop on Thursday evening, June 16, at 7pm in the Council Chambers.  We hope some interested parents (newly energized by the budget process) will join us in the peanut gallery.  It’s usually very lonely there.   The veil will be lifted – at least partially – on the long-term facilities plan that has been in the works for at least the last two years.  It should be interesting.

---

Once again, thanks for reading and sharing this blog during the budget season.  Stay tuned for more good stuff.  And if you have any topics we should consider, please contact us at tthannah@yahoo.com.

Happy Trails until we meet again!

TT Hannah

OK, folks, it’s the moment of truth for the Fiscal 2017 school budget.  And the whole truth about the budget has been in short supply lately, as you know.  In any event, Tuesday, June 14, is school budget referendum day.  Voting is at the High School from 7 am to 8 pm.  Hopefully you have already voted, but, if not, please put it on your calendar with a big red circle.

---

Question #1…  asks if we want to approve a $39.8 million school budget which requires 5.5% more taxpayer funding than last year’s.  We don’t think so!  So the answer is a definite NO!

---

Question #2…  asks if we want to continue having these annual opportunities to approve or reject the school budget.  Of course we do!  So the answer is a firm and enthusiastic YES!

For at least the last three years the Town Council has approved a school budget that the voters have rejected at least once.  Why on earth would we trust them to get it right going forward???  Especially now that the Town Council seems to function more like a subcommittee of the School Board. 

---

Remember:

• NO on Question #1

• YES on Question #2

As we know, the Supporters of Scarborough Schools (also known as “SSS” or “$$$”) have a large, well-organized network.  If we are to have a chance, we need to enlist as many friends and neighbors to vote as possible.  Please spread the word!

---

Over the cliff!

As you know from previous blog entries, the proposed budget is totally out of whack due to the use of the $1.6 million Wentworth Windfall.  This not only wildly distorts the proposed Fiscal 2017 budget but sets us up for staggering tax increases in Fiscal 2018 and beyond.

To summarize the impacts… If it weren’t for the $1.6 million Wentworth Windfall:

• taxpayer funding for the schools would increase by nearly 9% instead of the current 5.5%.

• the overall mil rate (school, municipal and county) would be about 5.5% or so instead of the current 3%.

With no repeat of the Wentworth Windfall and a continued decline in State education aid, the Fiscal Cliff is looming.  Unfortunately, the proposed budget utterly fails to prepare us for the rough seas ahead.  [Excuse the mixed metaphors.]

Here’s the excerpt from the Budget Forum Q&A Summary that confirms the total tax rate noted in the second bullet above:

That last line is tough to see in the original, but the answer is: “Without the $1,569,553 Wentworth funds, the overall tax rate increase would be a 5.96% increase,”  (Here’s a link to the Budget Forum Q&A on the Town’s website.)

---

What our friends are saying…

We’re getting used to being called names – crazies, dimwits, etc.  It sort of validates our efforts.  On the other hand, we can’t help getting a bit prickly when the information we distribute is characterized as “misleading” and our integrity is questioned.

 

Take a look at what Jean-Marie Caterina posted on her “Jean-Marie Caterina, Scarborough Town Council” Facebook page:

It must be “misleading” because it doesn’t use their preferred number — 3% for the total tax rate increase.   (Which, as we know, would really be nearly 6% without that Wentworth Windfall.)  Of course, we’re not voting on the total tax increase. Anyway, here’s my response to her.  It was taken down within a couple of hours.

Is this the sort of leadership we expect and deserve from our Town Council members?  Some members seem to think that they have a monopoly on the facts.  Or at least on the facts that matter.  All we care about is a full sharing of all the relevant facts so that informed voters can make reasoned choices.  Is that too much to ask?

If you want to confirm the 5.5% , here’s the link to the Town Manager’s Budget Transmittal (see page 5).  (Warning: The link goes to the entire 407-page budget book.)

---

Compromise?  What Compromise?

On numerous occasions lately, many School Board and Town Council members have interrupted their gushing self-congratulations to highlight all the compromises that were supposedly achieved in the proposed budgets.  Umm, exactly what compromises are we talking about here? 

Your devoted editor attended or watched most of the school and municipal budget meetings.  And he is at a loss to identify a single instance of what would generally be considered compromise.

For instance, the school budget did not have a single change between the time it was first rolled out on April 6 and its approval at the second reading by the Town Council on May 18.  So where was the “compromise” in the school budget?  It started out requiring a 5.5% increase in taxpayer funding and ended up there, too.  Compromise?????

Or take the miraculous appearance of about $450,000 at the May 11 Town Finance Committee meeting and the oh-so-coincidental assignment of that amount to six new municipal positions at the same meeting.  One brave Councilor suggested that perhaps all six positions weren’t necessary, thus allowing a modest amount of the $450,000 to remain in the taxpayers’ pockets.  But that idea went nowhere.   Instead – with timing that assured it couldn’t be covered in the local press – the $450,000 of new positions sailed through at the May 18 Council meeting  Compromise???  Sounds more like CONSPIRACY if you ask us.

---

And the winner is…

---

That’s it for now, folks.  If you haven’t voted yet, please do so on June 14!  And if you have voted, please gently prod some friends and neighbors to make their voices heard.

Remember:

• NO on Question #1

• YES on Question #2

Be neighborly,

TT Hannah

Two questions on the June 14 ballot

Before we get to the fascinating elephant story, let’s get down to brass tacks:  On June 14, we’ll be voting on two school budget questions.  Here’s our handy summary (which can be clipped out and stuffed in a pocket or purse as a reminder):

Please note that – no matter how hard some members of the Town Council are trying to sell it – the “one budget” concept is merely a diversion… an attempt to keep us from seeing what’s happening in the school budget.  And the vote on June 14 is solely on the school budget.  Let’s keep our eye on the ball!

---

The wrong elephant!

Now, about that elephant… In his introduction and overview of the budget at the Town Council meeting on May 18, Councilor Babine highlighted an elephant in the room.  Unfortunately, he either mixed up his big game or isn’t clear on the meaning of the phrase “an elephant in the room.”

According to the Urban Dictionary, an elephant in the room is “a very large issue that everyone is acutely aware of, but nobody wants to talk about.”  In his presentation, Councilor Babine cited the reduction in State education aid as the elephant in the room.  Wrong!  The State aid reduction has gotten more attention than any single issue in this year’s budget.  It is constantly on the lips of many Councilors and School Board members (especially, it seems, those who are running for State-level office).  Everybody talks about the decrease in State aid at every opportunity, thus disqualifying it as the proverbial elephant in the room.

On the other hand, there was an elephant in the room during Councilor Babine’s presentation, namely, the $1.6 million Wentworth Windfall that very few of the Councilors and none of the School Board members dare mention.  In fact, it is astounding that Councilor Babine could give his entire budget presentation without once mentioning the $1.6 million windfall and the highly distortive effect it has on the Fiscal 2017 budget. 

The Wentworth Windfall – by virtue of its size, its unplanned nature and its one-time occurrence – is very likely the most important factor in the entire budget.  Yet it did not get a single mention in Councilor Babine’s remarks.  Now there, friends, is an elephant of note.

---

A few words from one of the crazies…

Perhaps sensing that some informed viewers of his presentation might have a quibble or two with it, Councilor Babine fired off this Facebook post the next day:

 

 

Apparently holding a different opinion on the budget is enough to get you classified as one of the “crazies.”  We have always considered that asking questions was a healthy part of “the process.”  And, taking to heart Benjamin Franklin’s advice, we intend to continue asking questions…

---

---

From our “Old Chestnuts” Series…

That old chestnut has been getting a lot of use during this budget season.  Most recently, Councilor Caiazzo cited it at the May 18 Town Council meeting in addressing the future beyond the Fiscal 2017 budget.

We have heard on many occasions about the need to plan ahead, but what exactly is “the plan” that the School Board and Town Council have devised?  Truth be told, there is no plan! 

How can you have a plan when you won’t even acknowledge the scope of the problem by doing projections of what future years might look like?  “Oh my, no, we can’t do projections… the future is just too uncertain,” seems to be the prevailing sentiment.  Or, as Councilor Caiazzo stated, “let’s be cautious about being too futuristic with our projections.” He added that it’s a “very dangerous precedent when you start applying next year’s potentials to this year’s budget decision.” 

Umm… all projections are, by definition, uncertain.  But by laying out those uncertainties and making educated estimates of future revenues and expenses, you are engaging in what we like to call “the planning process.”  Burying your head in the sand, ignoring known future trends (like the continuing reduction in State education aid) and continuing to spend like the future is rosy are not “best practices” budget planning techniques.

---

VOTE NOW… avoid the rush.

Early voting is a quick and painless procedure.  Make plans to stop by Town Hall for a couple of minutes in the next few days and vote.  Remember: NO on #1 and YES on #2.  If you don’t vote, you can’t complain!

---

Alan Young’s Passing

We note with sadness the passing of Alan Young, who played Wilburrrrrrrrr, the straight man to our favorite talking horse, Mr. Ed.  For those many laughs from a simpler time we are grateful.

---

---

That’s all for this exciting episode, folks.  Now it’s up to us to spread the word about the proposed budget and what it really means both for this year — and more importantly — for future tax rates.  Please vote soon and encourage friends and neighbors to do the same!

Happy trails until we meet again,

TT Hannah

Welcome to another exciting edition of The Budget Game!  Where money is no object, where the devil is lurking in the details, and where taxpayers had better hold on to their wallets for dear life.  On our last show, the School Board hit the jackpot and walked away with a boatload of cash.

Which brings us to today’s Bonus Round where anything can and will happen.  So, without further ado, let’s begin today’s Bonus Round!

Representing municipal operations, it’s our esteemed Town Manager, Tom Hall.  He’ll be going up against the Finance Committee of Messrs Babine, Caiazzo and Hayes —  three guys who know the value of a dollar.  Or do they?  We’ll see right after this break…

---

Spinning the Wheel at the Finance Committee Meeting

At the Finance Committee meeting on May 11, they spun the wheel and – you’ll never believe it! – the Town’s financial staff was able to “refine” the original budget estimates to come up with an extra $340,000 available in the Fiscal 2017 budget.   “Fantastic!” you say.  “We won’t need to raise taxes quite so much!”  But once again, dear taxpayer, you have leapt to the wrong conclusion…

It turns out that the found $340,000 is just about enough to fund four new positions – an Assistant Town Manager, a Sustainability Coordinator and two firemen.  Coincidence or what?!  Well, actually that was the plan from the beginning.  Until Councilor Hayes raised the issue of the two requested additional police officers…  He thought that public safety concerns were probably more important than a couple of additional administrative people at Town Hall.  And we think he’s right.

Councilors Babine and Caiazzo essentially said, yes, police officers would be nice but we already spent that extra $340k on the Assistant Town Manager, Sustainability Coordinator and two firemen.  When Councilor Hayes persisted, Babine and Caiazzo relented… sort of.  They decided that instead of $340,000 of extra money being “available” from spinning the budget wheel, there was actually $440,000 available!  Another $100,000!  Just like that, they revised the recommendation of Town financial staff and came up with more “extra funds” to pay for the new police positions.  The whole discussion was a thing of beauty.  (It’s on the Town website, but — fair warning — it’s two-plus rather painful hours.)

---

The New Positions

In our never-ending quest to keep our readers informed, here’s the condensed version of the job responsibilities for the two proposed new administrative positions:

• Assistant Town Manager: budget analysis, purchasing/procurement functions, assists town manager, “responds to…filing of complaints.” Annual cost: $84,508.

• Sustainability Coordinator: manage town energy programs, “taking Town’s solid waste, recycling and composting program to the next level,” “assume responsibilities of the current Beach Monitoring Coordinator” (i.e., piping plover manager), coordinate municipal storm water program. Annual cost: $73,000.

Both positions sound like a collection of vaguely related responsibilities.  And while it was suggested that the Sustainability Coordinator position would pay for itself, it was disconcerting that there was no projection of just how that would be accomplished.  But not to worry… after the person gets hired, they’ll start keeping track of the savings they generate. 

Let’s hope there’s enough office space at Town Hall for these two new positions.  Can’t you see next year’s capital request for an addition to Town Hall due to overcrowding?

---

“Not my job.”

Two disturbing themes popped up at this Finance Committee meeting and in previous meetings as well.  One was along the lines of: “oh, that’s only $10,000 on an $80 million budget.”  Another version of this disregard for fiscal responsibility is: “we can’t be worried about the cost of pencils.”  Apparently some members of the Finance Committee have more important things to worry about than a mere $10,000 of your tax dollars.  But if the members of the Finance Committee aren’t going to worry about our tax dollars, who will?

A related concern is the unquestioning reliance placed on recommendations of staff, i.e., the Town Manager.  On several occasions, this has also been expressed as the Councilors “not wanting to get too deep in the weeds.”  Yes, we agree that Tom Hall is an intelligent and thorough administrator.  But that doesn’t mean his recommendations and judgments should be accepted without question.  Indeed, isn’t one of a Council member’s primary responsibilities to review and pass judgment on the recommendations of Town staff?  And, like it or not, that means getting into the weeds.

---

In a Pickle over Pickleball

There’s one paragraph in the 407-page budget devoted to the construction of a “senior recreation area” to include walking trails, bocce and pickleball courts, an outdoor chess set and other amenities.  The price tag on this area is a cool $100,000.

Questions about this project popped up on social media… fortunately.  Now we’re all for getting seniors out of the house; we understand they’re spending way too much time on video games and Facebook.  But $100,000???

It turns out that real plans for this project don’t exist.  The $100,000 is merely a “placeholder” for a project yet to be determined.  We understand that the Senior Advisory Committee and Community Services (which would be undertaking the project) have significant disagreements about its scope and location.  Last time we checked, Scarborough was awash in walking trails. And has there been a huge public outcry for bocce courts and outdoor checker/chess sets?  If there has been, we missed it.  Come to think of it, doesn’t this entire single-generation-oriented proposal smack of ageism?

Scarborough has about 5,000 folks who could be considered “seniors.”  If you took a poll of them, what percentage of them would prefer keeping taxes lower by $100,000 compared to spending that amount on an ill-defined project of questionable need?  We believe the overwhelming majority would opt for a lower tax bill.

Our bottom line: Maybe there is a need for senior-focused outdoor recreation opportunities.  But let’s nail down the needs, figure out a realistic cost, get wide public input and then – and only then – include it in a future capital budget.  Especially when it comes to park projects, many citizens are not impressed with the Town’s track record.  To approve a $100,000 “placeholder” is a recipe for a project to go horribly wrong.

---

The Old Cynic’s Corner

The timing of this past Wednesday’s Finance Committee meeting was interesting, to say the least.  Some would even describe it as suspicious.  In any event, it was a very convenient time to “find” $400,000 or so of “unanticipated” revenue and expense reductions… and then spend it. 

So six new positions are proposed at the tail end of the budget process, when there’s no chance they’ll be reported in the local press.  And then the new positions will go to the full Town Council on May 18 – with the approval recommendation of the Finance Committee – for the second reading of the budget.  And presto, six positions are added to the Town’s payroll with a minimum of public awareness or fuss.  Ahh, transparency!  (It’s a good thing you read this blog, or you probably wouldn’t know what’s going on with the budget until after it gets approved.)

---

Due to the pressing topics associated with the FY 2017 budget, we have had to delay our special issue devoted to the goings-on at Scarborough’s beaches… the Avenue Two controversy at Pine Point, the new parking meter at Higgins, the dune “restoration” at Sam Homer Beach (the northern arm of Ferry Beach) and, of course, piping plovers everywhere. Those topics and more as soon as the urgency of the budget passes.

Speaking of pressing topics in the budget, please check out the column in The Current on the topic of pressing topics.

---

That’s all for now, folks.  Thanks for reading!

Happy trails until we meet again.  

TT Hannah

Whenever we hear Town officials talking about us going over a “fiscal cliff,” it gets our attention.  So we sat up and took notice when we heard that term used a few times at the Budget Forum this past Wednesday evening.  For those of you who weren’t able to attend Wednesday’s festivities, here’s a brief update on the high and low points.  We’re not telling which are which… that’s for you to decide.

---

Impact of the “Wentworth Windfall”

Town Manager Hall reported that the total tax rate increase for FY 2017 if we hadn’t received the Wentworth Windfall would have been 5.96%.  (In our last blog post, we estimated it at 5.9%.  Close enough.)   That was probably the most important number cited all evening.  So if we hadn’t lucked out with the one-time Wentworth Windfall, our taxes would have gone up nearly 6% instead of 3.3%. 

Since the Windfall won’t repeat in FY 2018 or years thereafter, what would you expect rates of increase to be in those years – closer to 3% or 6%?  Yes, we’re betting on increases in the 6% neighborhood.  Perhaps even in the 7-8% range for FY 2018.

---

What declining enrollment?

Dr. Entwistle, in his last Budget Forum appearance, continued to deny that there has been a decline in enrollment in Scarborough schools.  The accompanying chart has appeared in this blog before.  The data is from the Maine Department of Education website.  To us, it sure looks like a decline in enrollment.  If you can explain how this chart does not show declining enrollment, please contact us so we can share a method of interpretation that has thus far escaped us.

---

School Budget Overview

School Board Finance Committee Chair Shea gave the quick overview of the school budget.  She mentioned the $1.1 million decline in State education aid this year, but somehow omitted any mention of the $1.6 million one-time revenue infusion from the excess Wentworth borrowing.  Yes, the Windfall was once again swept under the rug – never mind that it’s arguably the most important factor in understanding the FY 2017 school budget.  And it will have a huge negative impact on future year budgets.  Taxpayers deserve all the facts, not just the convenient ones.

---

“One Scarborough One Budget”

Councilor Babine gave us this gem: ” One Scarborough One Budget.”  It is, as far as we can tell, an attempt to blur the impact of the school budget on the Town’s tax rate.  It’s much harder to question something that you can’t see.  The attempted blurring was evident throughout the 407-page budget document as school-specific amounts were sometimes combined with municipal amounts or just omitted. 

Remember that approximately 66% of your tax bill goes to funding the schools.  And it’s the school portion of your taxes that is growing at a rapid rate.  So it would seem very appropriate to be able to understand how the school budget works without gumming it up with unrelated municipal revenues and expenses. 

Also, before we go too far with this attempt to obfuscate the school budget, our Town leadership should recall that the school budget is required by State law. “One budget” may be okay for sloganeering, but let’s not forget what Maine law requires – a meaningful school budget.

By the way, attempting to blur the impact of the school budget moves us in the completely opposite direction from the oft-stated goal of “transparency.” 

---

More School Aid Reductions Soon: Fiscal Cliff, here we come!

Both Superintendent Entwistle and Councilor Babine noted that Scarborough will likely lose an additional $1.6 million in State education aid within the next few years.  OK, more significant school revenue reductions are likely in FY 2018 and beyond. And our reaction is to increase school operating expenses by $2.3 million in FY 2017?   What sort of self-deluding budgeting world are some of our Town leaders living in?

---

---

Unanswered Questions

Due to time limitations, quite a few submitted questions were not answered at the Budget Forum.  But written answers to all questions have been promised.  They will be posted on the Budget page of the Town website.

Here are a couple of questions that we’re eagerly awaiting the answers to:

1. For several years now, taxpayers have subsidized the school lunch program’s loss of more than $200,000 per year. Yet the budget in FY 2017 only calls for a $25,000 subsidy.  How is that possible?

2. What is the total of all salaries and wages for the schools included in the FY 2017 budget and what is the percentage increase from the FY 2016 budget? (You would think information as basic as this would be readily available somewhere in the 407-page budget document… but you’d be wrong.)
   

   ---

A Question We Forgot to Ask

The contract with the teachers’ union expires on August 31, 2016.  The salaries and benefits covered in that contract probably make up close to 50% of total school expenses.  The teachers’ contract is by far the largest driver of expenses in the school budget.  So why does the school budget state in at least eight places that the teachers’ contract expires on June 30, 2016? 

Shouldn’t someone who prepared the budget – or perhaps a member of the School Board Finance Committee – have picked up on the fact that the wrong expiration date was used for the teachers’ contract throughout the budget narrative?  While this oversight has no financial impact, it does make us more than a little worried that the school budget didn’t really get a thorough critical review.

---

Coming Soon…

 

While the budget provides so much good material, we plan to take a break and get into summer mode in our next posting.  As the piping plovers and the folks from away return to our fair Town, it seems like a perfect opportunity to take a look at what’s happening at our beautiful beaches.  In addition to spotlighting newsworthy developments at the beaches, we’re planning on some practical features, like tips on how to change into your bathing suit on the beach while using only a copy of The Leader for coverage.  And how to obtain beachfront property from the Town for peanuts.   Stay tuned!

---

In the meantime, don’t forget the “public hearing” on the budget at the Town Council meeting at 7pm on Wednesday, May 4.  Remember to wear red.

---

Happy trails until we meet again!

TT Hannah

Well, friends, we’re beginning to suspect that the Dark Arts are involved in this year’s budget process.

Consider that our State education aid is going down by $1.1 million in FY 2017.  Most organizations would reduce operating expenses when their revenues take a major hit.  But, no, our School Board comes in with the addition of $600,000 of new, on-going expenses.  Not to mention the increase of $1.1 million of expenses associated with providing “level services.”  So expenses are increasing by a total of $1.7 million while revenues are decreasing by $1.1 million.  Amazing!  Counterintuitive!  Crazy!  Have our Town leaders at last discovered the formula for turning lead into gold?

No matter what soothing words you may hear at the Budget Forum on Wednesday evening, please keep the facts above in mind.  And remember that without the $1.6 million Wentworth School windfall, taxpayer funding for education would have increased by 9.7%.  Clearly a case of dark magic at work!

---

 New High School Rankings Released

In an annual rite of spring, U.S. News & World Report has released its national ranking of high schools (link here).  We readily acknowledge that – at best – these rankings are a crude measure of academic performance.  They are, on the other hand, conducted impartially and have some methodological validity.

Scarborough High School slipped from #11 in Maine last year to #14 this year.  Not a huge decrease and still a very respectable showing overall.  The trend, however, is concerning.

As can be seen in the above graph, performance is declining in spite of consistent recent increases in education spending.  So if more money isn’t having a positive impact, then what changes need to be made?  If there really is a decline in academic performance, what is causing it?

It’s also worth noting that the significant increases in school expenditures have occurred during a period of declining enrollment.  As of October 1, 2011, total enrollment per the Maine Department of Education was 3,248.  As of October 1, 2015 it was 2,989.  That’s a decline of 259 students or 8%.

Finally, the Portland Press Herald had a surprisingly honest editorial about the U.S. News & World Report rankings.  Here are a couple of vitally important paragraphs from that article [emphasis added]:

“Schools in wealthy communities score well in large part because the students come from well-off families, and get all the privileges and advantages that implies – more parental involvement, extra help outside of school, a warm, safe and hunger-free place in which to do homework.

But most people only see the ranking at a superficial level, so they attribute the ranking entirely to the school itself. That draws more wealthy families to the school district, pushing out others and reinforcing the geographic and economic isolation that plagues schools in Maine, and all over the country.”

Long story short: towns with much higher per capita income levels than Scarborough will always have better scoring schools than we do… no matter how much money we spend on them.  Funding of the schools is obviously one important variable in determining the success of the students.  But there are at least two other critical variables: the relative wealth of the community and the effectiveness of the teaching program.

---

Budget Forum — Wednesday, April 27 @ 7pm

Please don’t forget to put the upcoming Budget Forum on your calendar!

Hope to see you there!

---

New Superintendent Named

Congratulations to our new Superintendent of Schools – Julie Kukenberger!  She comes to Scarborough from the assistant superintendent position in Haverhill, MA.  She has pledged to “incorporate all stakeholder viewpoints,” according to an article in The Current.  We’re hoping taxpayers are included as stakeholders, since each and every one of us is directly affected by the schools.  Obviously, Ms. Kukenberger’s primary focus has to be student-centered.    But let’s hope she will also be at least taxpayer-considerate.

---

News from other school districts…

Our neighbors in Cape Elizabeth had a 29% reduction in State aid due to “rising property values and declining school enrollment.”  Their reaction was quite a bit different than ours, however.  Instead of adding 6 positions like we did, they eliminated 4 positions.  What an interesting approach!  (Article in The Forecaster.)

 

Meanwhile, in Yarmouth some taxpayers are speaking up about the increasing costs of that Town’s much-envied school system.  One resident said: “We are providing a private school education with a public school tax rate.  At some point, where do you stop paying for all the extras that are beyond the needs determined by the state?”  Oh my!  That sort of attitude is sure to stir up Yarmouth’s Free-Spenders.  (Article in the Portland Press Herald.)

---

Your Education Dollar$ at Work…

Here’s some of the consulting work that’s been going on behind the scenes in this year’s budget process:

[Editor’s note: A couple of our readers (from the Free-Spending Brigade) object to our occasional practice of tossing in a bit of whimsy with the hard, indisputable facts that make up the great majority of this blog.  How can we take any of this seriously, they say, if it’s not all factual?  Well, they’ll have to live with our occasional attempts at humor, as lame and moronic as they often are.  And just in case they’re not sure, the first two items above are as real as real can be.  The third one, not so much….]

---

That’s all for now, folks.  If you want one more dose of the Wentworth windfall story, please see this column in The Current.

Hope to see you this Wednesday evening at 7pm at the High School auditorium!

Be neighborly,

TT Hannah

Joy!  Joy!  The big reveal of the Fiscal 2017 budget happened at the April 6 Town Council meeting. Kudos and self-congratulations filled the Council chamber like the fumes in a poorly ventilated diner.  After all, an overall tax rate increase of 3.3% had just been announced, including an increase in the school budget of only 5.5%.   What’s not to be happy about?

Well, friends, it once again falls to us to prick the balloon of unjustified glee.  Given the budget history of the school department over the past few years, doesn’t a proposed increase in the school budget of only 5.5% seem a bit too good to be true?  Yes, it does.  And yes, it IS too good to be true.

Bear with us for a minute while we cut through the murkiness that disguises the real truth about the too-good-to-be-true increase in taxpayer funding of the schools.  It all goes back to that $2.6 million windfall that we described in the last exciting blog entry… 

Basically, we borrowed $2.6 million more than we needed for the Wentworth School construction.   And that excess is being used (legally) to pay some of the  interest and principal on the bonds, both this year (FY 2016) in the amount of $1.0 million and next year (in the FY 2017 budget) in the amount of $1.6 million.  As a result of this one-time windfall, the taxpayer funding of the Fiscal 2017 school budget has been artificially reduced by $1.6 million.  Without that windfall, the amount of taxpayer funding of the schools would have increased by 9.7% over the FY 2016 budgeted level. Yikes!

Note that there is nothing illegal or even shady here.  On the other hand, the currently proposed budget is just plain fiscally irresponsible.  It masks significant issues in the current year which will bite all taxpayers in the posterior in future years.  It sacrifices responsibility for expediency.  If this budget is an example of the sort of life values that are being taught in school, we are all in deep trouble.

Here’s a quick summary of the school budget:

Breathtaking, isn’t it?  Even after using $1.6 million of “free money,” they still want taxpayers to pony up 5.5% more than last year.  If this isn’t a recipe for disaster, we don’t know what is.

---

The crux of the matter

Faithful readers of LookOutScarborough know that we always try to get to the crux of the matter without delay.  And let’s face it, who has time to review a 400-plus page budget document?  So here’s the really important stuff…

Below is a list of the three key components of the FY 2017 budget that you have to understand to in order to get the full picture of what’s going on.  (You can look for them presented this clearly in the official 400⁺ page document, but you won’t find it.)

As you see above, that one-time windfall just about cancels out the impact of the reduction in State aid and the new school expenses added in Fiscal 2017.  Those newly added $600,000 of expenses, however, will carry on (and grow) in FY 2018 and thereafter.   And further significant reductions in State education aid are expected in FY 2018 and 2019.  So although FY 2017 looks all rosy, be prepared for major increases in FY 2018 and 2019.

Our Director of Metrics and Analytics is hard at work on projections for the FY 2018 and 2019 tax rates.  They will not be pretty.  We’ll share those in our next blog post.

---

An Analogy

Sometimes this financial stuff can make your head spin.  So here’s an attempt to relate the poor choices made in the current proposed budget to a possible real-life situation.

So, let’s say you are a family with a couple of kids and an income level that is just adequate for your current lifestyle.  And then your favorite uncle passes away and leaves you $25,000 with the stipulation that it be used to pay the mortgage for a year.  All of a sudden, an extra $25,000 has been freed up in your budget since the bequest will take care of the mortgage payments for the year. 

What do you do with that bonus cash?  Well, you could use it for the downpayment and first year’s payments on a vacation condo.  That first year will be sweet.  The problem, however, will be that you will now have to come up with the mortgage payments on the condo in all future years – putting  a major strain on your budget after the first year. 

Another option might be to take at least a part of the freed up $25,000 and set it aside in the kids’ college education fund.  Both these options are possibilities.  One is financially responsible; the other is not. 

With the choices made in the proposed Scarborough school budget, we’re opting for the vacation home we can’t afford.  Again, the proposed budget sacrifices fiscal responsibility for the expediency of a tax increase that appears to be reasonable… until you understand how it was achieved and what it means for the future.

---

What to do

There’s a clear solution to this: reduce the level of expenses in the operating budget to a sustainable level.  Sustainability, after all, is a hot concept these days.  If there ever were a time to rein in expenses, now would be it.  Instead, the proposed school budget includes an increase in on-going expenses of nearly $600,000.

Reducing expenses is obviously not an easy solution, but the longer we avoid it, the more difficult it will become.  You know the old saying about biting the bullet.

---

A few comparisons…

Here are the mil rate increases currently proposed at a few of our neighbors:

With that windfall artificially reducing the schools’ ongoing expense base, we’re in the ballpark.  But take out the windfall and we’re out of sight.  The “first reading” budget needs to be drastically overhauled to produce one that is fiscally responsible.

---

Final Thoughts…

---

That’s it for now.  Much more to come next time, including:

• our projections for FY 2018 and 2019
• a report card on the school budget
• a handicapping of the candidates for the Superintendent job
• budget myths debunked – first in a new series
  

  ---

Happy trails until we meet again.

Be neighborly,

TT Hannah

 

 

 

 

One of the things we like best about the budget season is that you never quite know what will happen next. It’s the thrill of the unknown that keeps things interesting day after day. And this budget season is off to a rousing start in the “are-you-kidding-me?” category…

You recall that our State education funding (“GPA”) for the new budget year has been cut by about $1 million from last year’s level. And the handwriting is on the wall for more State aid cuts in the future. Lots of noise and pitchfork rattling about that.

But then last week Town Manager Tom Hall dropped the bombshell that we have $2.6 million left over from the bonds that were issued for the Wentworth School construction. Yikes! Of course it’s always better to have something left over than to run short, but $2.6 million left over out of about $38 million of bonds? How did that happen? And don’t forget, we’re currently paying interest on those “extra” bonds.

But the really startling news is the planned use of that $2.6 million that we taxpayers originally approved to fund the construction of the new Wentworth. Hold on to your ten-gallon hats, Pardners! The $2.6 million that was approved for capital spending is going to be used to fund school operations both this year and in the Fiscal 2017 budget.  It is, as far as we can tell, perfectly legal from the bond regulations perspective.

On the other hand, the “fortuitous” appearance of $2.6 million may provide a convenient way for school and Town leaders to ignore the realities of the schools’ financial situation, namely, expenses are climbing at a rate well in excess of inflation in an environment of declining enrollment and declining State aid.

And we wonder if the intentions of the voters are being honored here… We approved the bonds to be issued to finance the Wentworth capital project.  And now a portion of the proceeds of those bonds is going to be effectively used to pay school operating costs. Doesn’t seem right to us.

Stay tuned as the saga of the surprise $2.6 million unfolds!

Speaking of the budget…

---

Budget Update…  Big Reveal at 7pm on April 6

As we are finalizing this blog, the first hints of the municipal and school budgets have been made public,  Buried in the materials for the April 6 Town Council meeting, you’ll find the “Budget Order for Fiscal Year 2017.”  (It’s at page 23 of the pdf linked here.)  There’s not enough information there to allow any meaningful understanding of the proposed municipal and school budgets — but why would you expect that?

The big reveal will be at this coming Wednesday’s Town Council meeting — April 6 at 7pm.  At that time, presumably the Town Manager and School Superintendent will unveil to all — the public as well as the Council members — the high-level view of the budgets.  And then, after a presentation of a half-hour or so, the Council will be asked to give its “first reading approval” to raising $60 million of taxes.  But don’t worry… it’s only the “first reading” and this is just to get the process started.  And it’s “the way we’ve always done it.” Here’s an  idea: why not release all the details of the proposed budgets before taking any votes at all?  That way, the Council members would have adequate time to review the budget before giving even preliminary approval.

Although we have an inkling, we don’t know for sure what the budget looks like.  But we have a couple of potential headlines for next week’s blog — “Council Turns Over New Leaf!” or “More Budget Smoke and Mirrors!”   Tune in next week to see which it is!

---

The Cock-eyed Cohort

Good old Dr. Entwistle! As his days in the saddle wind down, he decided to leave us a parting gift: a brand new group of school districts to which Scarborough schools should be compared. (In academic-speak, a comparison group is known as a “cohort.” That’s today’s “secret word.”)

So the Superintendent engaged a couple of researchers from USM (presumably using school funds, i.e., our tax dollars) to prepare a study to determine which schools we should compare ourselves to.  Here are the school districts they came up with for our “aspirational cohort”:

• Cape Elizabeth
• Falmouth
• Yarmouth
• Cumberland (RSU 51)
• York.

“Aspirational.”of course, meaning that these are the school districts which we most want to be like.

So how did the researchers create this cohort? Well, they started by making comparisons of numerous districts in Cumberland and York counties based of school size, community resources and socioeconomic status.  That produced an “overall similarity” score.  Using that similarity score, the top three school districts most like Scarborough were South Portland, RSU 05 (Freeport) and RSU 21 (Kennebunk). So far, so good.

But then they swept all those very meaningful comparisons away and used only one criterion to select the cohort – they only selected districts that had higher academic achievement than Scarborough. So here are the characteristics of Scarborough schools’ proposed new comparison group:

You will note that none of the the top three most similar school districts made the cohort.  By ignoring the relevant characteristics of school size, community resources and socioeconomic status, the researchers created a cohort that ignores those basic realities and results in a comparison group that is very much unlike Scarborough in many important ways:

• All the comparison districts have higher academic achievement (i. e., test scores) than Scarborough.
• All the comparison districts have higher per-pupil education spending than Scarborough; most are significantly higher.
• The average median household income of the comparison group is 11% higher than Scarborough’s.

The bottom line of selecting this “aspirational cohort” – every time we get compared to these other districts, Scarborough will appear to be underfunding educational spending. The “aspirational cohort” is clearly a stacked deck. Using this  cohort will provide the School Board with unlimited ammunition in their efforts to extract funds from taxpayers.

The really unfortunate aspect of this is that the non-transparency and manipulation of the selection process probably surprise no one.

Please don’t get us wrong… we want Scarborough’s schools to strive for excellence! Aspiration is a good thing! But aspiration that is not tempered by realism is a recipe for disaster. As that great late-20th century American philosopher Casey Kasem said: “Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars!” The proposed new cohort completely ignores the “feet on the ground” part of Kasem’s advice.

---

Where’d I put that swill bucket?

Back about a year ago, we reported on the “Pay-To-Throw” proposal that would have required us to pay for trash disposal at the cost of a couple bucks a bag. We thought that was a horrible idea. And we weren’t the only ones. Thankfully that idea seems to have been relegated to the Landfill of Ideas Whose Time Hasn’t Come.

But please don’t think we at LookOutScarborough are environmentally unconscious. We ♥ Mother Earth! In fact, until we can afford a Prius for the company car, we’re using one of the retired cows from Smiling Hill Farm to get around on.

Seriously, though… the Town’s Energy Committee recently prepared a very insightful report on the Town’s trash profile and what could be done that would be both financially and environmentally beneficial. It turns out that compostable stuff like food waste, coffee grounds and such (what we used to know as “garbage”) makes up a good chunk of the Town’s trash. There would be some nice savings in disposal fees if we could get that stuff out of the green trash bins every week and into a composting stream.

At this point, the potential savings in trash disposal fees are not enough to justify a separate collection of compostable material. But the Town is taking a good first step by arranging with Garbage to Garden to have three drop-off sites for compostables around Town as of May 1. After that, perhaps one of the private local composting companies will add Scarborough to their collection areas on a subscription basis. That would give those of us who want to cut our waste footprint an opportunity to put our garbage where our mouths are… and not force the entire Town into a composting program.

Ultimately, we hope a giant compost fermentation tank can be installed behind Town Hall to provide a free source of methane for the Tri-Gen system. We’ll be off the grid in no time!

---

The Super does Facebook

As part of the new school communications strategy, Dr. Entwistle now has a Facebook page. Hooray! Find it at Superintendent Scarborough, Maine. Make sure you like it to keep up on the Super’s daily activities.

So far, it’s been a fascinating view into education in the 21st century. Lots of cool lingo: “learning commons,” “professional learning team facilitator” and “interrater reliability.” Recently we learned that “Marzano iObservation has been selected by Scarborough and a number of other districts as their new Performance Evaluation and Professional Growth system for teachers.” We’re hoping if we keep up with the posts we’ll get some insight into what kids are being taught these days.

---

That’s it for now.  In anticipation of another rollicking budget season, get plenty of rest and drink lots of fluids!

Happy trails until we meet again,

TT Hannah