EPS no friend of the rural

Recently in this newspaper, Belfast City Manager Terry St. Peter and Speaker of the Maine House John Richardson presented opposing views to explain why Belfast’s property taxes went up this year. St. Peter blamed the state’s new school funding formula. Richardson said it was solely the result of decisions made by Belfast voters and School Administrative District 34. As the only member of the Legislature’s Education Committee representing Waldo County, I would like to dig deeper into this, because it will help shed light on how recent changes in Maine law are affecting Maine taxpayers.

Two years ago the legislature passed, but did not put into place, a new school funding mechanism called Essential Programs and Services (EPS). EPS apportions state aid to school districts according to a very complicated model created by Maine Department of Education (DOE) consultants. Then, in June 2004, the voters passed the Maine Municipal referendum to immediately increase school funding from an average of 43 percent to 55 percent. In January 2005, the Legislature took the unprecedented step of repealing the bill enacted by the people before it had a chance to go into effect, and replaced it with LD 1. LD 1 used the EPS formula to increase the state share of education costs over a four-year period.

As LD 1 made its way through the Legislature, I asked DOE to provide a side by side print out that would show how much money would go to each school unit under the old formula as compared to EPS, assuming the same increased level of funding. The DOE said they could not provide the information to us, which effectively denied the Legislature the ability to scrutinize the claim that the “losers” under EPS would have been worse off under the old formula. As a result, I supported delaying implementation of EPS until the legislature could clearly understand the consequences of its actions, but the train had left the station, LD 1 passed, and was proclaimed the answer to every taxpayer’s prayers.

This is the context of the St. Peter-Richardson disagreement. Richardson says Belfast and SAD 34 are solely accountable for the increase in property taxes. As proof, he points to the 8.1 percent increase in the SAD 34 budget. He acknowledges that Belfast didn’t get any of state’s extra money for schools, but argues that they would have gotten less under the old formula. But how can any of us accept that as “fact” when the DOE couldn’t or wouldn’t produce the side by side required to prove it?

At this point, a comparison might be helpful. While the voters of SAD 34 were getting hit with a big increase in local school taxes, Richardson’s own Brunswick schools were happily getting a two million four hundred eighty four thousand four hundred and fourteen dollar increase in state funding which enabled Brunswick to maintain programs and cut local school taxes. Meanwhile SAD 34 was cutting 4.5 teachers, 6.5 ed techs, and 2 administrators.

It would appear that Brunswick did a little better controlling costs with a 7.44 percent increase, compared to 8.1 percent for SAD 34. But SAD 34 had an increase in debt service due to new school construction urged upon the SAD by the state. Brunswick had a reduction in debt service. Brunswick had a decrease in enrollment, SAD 34’s enrollment increased. Adjusting for these factors, Brunswick’s costs are up by 10.24 percent, and SAD 34’s by 5.1 percent.

EPS favors compact districts like we find in cities and southern Maine suburbs. SAD 34 includes Belfast, and the rural towns of Morrill, Searsmont, Belmont, Northport and Swanville. That was never mentioned in the Speaker’s response, but it is the crucial difference.

Why should anyone outside SAD 34 or possibly Brunswick care about any of this? Because next January in Augusta there are going to be two very different points of view clashing head on. On one side will be those of us who believe we must address the serious inequities that the Brunswick / SAD 34 comparison demonstrates, while further empowering local people to make their own choices about the cost and quality of their schools. On the other side will be those who will try to leverage the taxpayer discontent with Augusta into actually giving Augusta more power over local decision making. I hope the debate can be meaningful and guided by facts, which were woefully lacking when LD 1 was passed last winter.

Rep. Barbara Merrill (D-Appleton) represents House District 44.