Sandown May Take Money from Savings to Subsidize School Tax – updated

On Monday night, Sandown Board of Selectmen are going to decide whether or not to use the town’s fund balance to offset at least some of the school tax increase this year.  The Tri-Town Times calls the Fund Balance like “a municipal savings account.”

Here’s how the numbers work (as provided by the Tri-Town Times (10/30) and not yet independently verified):

Current tax rates:                               DRAFT TAX RATES

  • Town:  $5.06                             $4.49     (- 11.26%)
  • County:  $1.12                            $1.11     (-0.9%)
  • State school : $2.53                  $2.53  (NO CHANGE)
  • Local School: $18.37                 $19.45  (+5.9%)

Sandown’s School Taxes went up $1.08.  At the same time, Sandown cut its own tax rate by 57 cents.  This leaves a difference of 51 cents – all of it due to the school budget increase.  ( 1.08- .57 = .51 )

Our property taxes would be a lot worse if Sandown didn’t do such a good job controlling their own budget which had the effect of more than halving the tax impact of Timberlane’s budget increase.  Taking money from the town’s savings to subsidize part of the remaining school tax increase will be a temporary help to taxpayers but it will come at the cost of raiding our savings. The fact is that Timberlane’s budget is ever increasing and completely undisciplined and there is a limit to our own hard-earned savings. If the BOS votes to apply the unassigned fund balance to subsidize school taxes in order to keep Sandown’s taxes close to level this year, it is a strategy that cannot be repeated and encourages further bloated budgets by the school district.

While we’re tightening our belts, the SAU budget is up 11.5% in their proposal for 2015-2016. The school district budget proposal has not yet been released.

UPDATE 11/5/14:   Sandown Board of Selectmen decided on Nov 3 that they would not be using the town’s Fund Balance to offset the school tax increase.  

39 Comments

Filed under Budget 2015-2016, Sandown Issues, Taxes

39 responses to “Sandown May Take Money from Savings to Subsidize School Tax – updated

  1. Chris True

    This seems like a noble gesture by the Sandown BOS. However, our selectman’s job is not to use a band-aid to help hide the school districts spending.

  2. Instead, why doesn’t Sandown under-fund the “district”? Simply send them less, and tell the thieves running things that the party is over.

    • Rob Collins

      Because, k1mgy, to do that violates the law and we like to follow the law here in NH.

      After all, this isn’t the pros and cons of a public sewer we are discussing here, this is the education of our children.

  3. I will need to go back to the Vimeo however didn’t the BOS say they didn’t want to get involved with the school district issues? We were told; as school district representatives, to provide “positive” updates (sounds like a RFP I reviewed recently).
    Now Steve Brown is quoted as saying the following: “I just really want to keep the tax rate down and I’m concerned with what will happen at the school,” said Brown. Perhaps Selectman Brown should run for School Board rather than serve as a representative of the Town of Sandown. I do not believe it is the responsibility of a Selectman to serve the SAU.
    RSA 41:8 states in part: The selectmen shall manage the prudential affairs of the TOWN and perform the duties by law prescribed. I do not believe the RSA meant for the BOS to mask the tax increase created by a bloated school budget and mislead the people on the impact the school budget is having on Sandown’s tax rate.
    Some on the BOS may have noble intensions as they consider withdrawing from the Town’s savings account to offset the impact of the school budget however it is a myopic proposal, in my personal opinion, that can have serious consequences in the coming years. What they should also be considering:
    • What impact will this decision have on the Town’s tax rate next year
    • Will the Town be able to continue to “dip” into its savings to mitigate the ever increasing school budget
    • What is the school tax impact when we no longer have the LCG fund padding the School District surplus
    • What would the tax impact be if we did not take this action
    o Who is at fault for that impact (it’s not Town operations)
    • Why are we covering for the school district out of control budget
    The best way for the BOS to serve the People of Sandown (and not the SAU) is to allow the People to realize the cost and personal impact of the never decreasing school budget. If the People of Sandown do not stand up and make their voices heard at SB and School Budget Committee meetings, prior to deliberative, then nothing will change. I will say if we cannot get the school budget under control this session, there will be no use for a School Board (not the SB isn’t already a facade) or a School Budget Committee (I still have hope for this elected body) moving forward.
    I will also note as a personal opinion: what has the SAU learned from the election results of March? Pad the budget even more. Put anything and everything into it that you can; $500,000.00 for transformers, $600,000.00 (+) for free FT kindergarten, a 3rd year of the one-time $260,000.00 math program; to name a few. No big ticket items will go to warrant as they should be; God forbid the people make the decision in this democratic society. And the result of an out of control budget? And out of control default budget. Win, win for the SAU. And our BOS would like to address the issue with a band-aide approach rather than true leadership and make that tough decision.

    Cathy

    • Rob Collins

      Cathy – Your comment quoted below makes no sense to me. From what little sense I can make out of it, if genuine, is pretty scary. I don’t understand how a Bud Com member can have so little knowledge of what’s actually going on. Even more scary considering you’ve already been through this process once already…. or are you intentionally misrepresenting in order to move people a certain way through scare tactics?

      “Put anything and everything into it that you can; $500,000.00 for transformers, $600,000.00 (+) for free FT kindergarten, a 3rd year of the one-time $260,000.00 math program; to name a few. No big ticket items will go to warrant as they should be; God forbid the people make the decision in this democratic society. And the result of an out of control budget? And out of control default budget. “

  4. Rob Collins

    “The fact is that Timberlane’s budget is ever increasing and completely undisciplined…” – Donna Green

    “…encourages further bloated budgets by the school district.” – Donna Green

    “Why are we covering for the school district out of control budget?” – Cathy Gorman

    If these statements are true, if the school budget is “completely undisciplined, “”out of control and “bloated” then why is the school portion of the ATKINSON tax rate going down? How is that possible?

    • Rob,

      Regarding the Atkinson tax rate: off topic. My concern is generating a financially sound budget that allows for appropriate and proper education for the students. My opinion is we do not currently have that based on what is being presented, expended in previous years and given other district comps. The fact the school budget is impacting Sandown is reason for me to have more concern. In addition, the BOS wants to ease the impact of a school budget is concerning to me also since as it may not be against any RSA it is a disservice to the People they serve. The point of the post.

      If we generated a sound budget that resulted in increased taxes I would defend the increase; as I have done for the Town budgets.

      Is it not true this is the 3rd year the budget contains the “one-time cost” for the math program? Perhaps the SB can finally make a decision on the program; it was proposed in 2012.

      Is it not true the SB is considering free FT K without truly understanding the gross cost? The only cost provided are “incremental” (not gross, net and any supporting documentation for incremental costs).
      I am also curious what metric, what qualifiers, did the SB use when they determined the FT K program was a success? … 5 weeks into the school year … and that it should be free? And should not the People decide by warrant as they did with PT K? Put it to warrant and it passes the concern of cost would end with that vote – the People made their decision.

      Is it not true that as enrollment has dropped over the past years as FTEs have stayed fairly constant? Understanding there are resourcing complexities and consideration unique to a 4 town district, this doesn’t make sense even by CC math standards.

      I do believe there is a desire to put a large sum ($500,000.00 was mentioned at the BudCom) for transformer(s). Should this not also go to warrant? My understanding is the SAU and the SB has known about this issue for minimally the previous 5 years. Or will the SB have another urgent vote to fund as they did for the small gym earlier this year.
      There are also a number of line items that have increased from 2013/2014 and 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 and now 2015/2016 in excess of 200%.

      • Shawn O'Neil

        Cathy,
        I believe Rob has a valid point with respect to Atkinson. Their school tax rate has gone down due to the fact that they are sending less children to school vs Sandown relative to their respective tax base. That is what ADM represents. Sandown’s ratio of utilizing the school has increased while Atkinson has decreased.

        I also understand the issue that the Sandown BOS face, but I personally would not support such a move in Danville. The Unreserved Fund balance is properly chosen by the BOS to handle a variety of issues such as emergencies (DRA/Court need to be consulted), and cash flow. Each entity has it own unique issues and are separated from a tax and operational perspective for a reason.

  5. Rob Collins

    Cathy – I understand you look at everything related to Timberlane through the lens of Sandown but I do not. The Atkinson tax rate is very much on topic related to your claims of the budget being “out of control.” It’s your option to ignore that fact but it doesn’t help you or the residents of Sandown one bit.

    Regarding the math program, whether or not the program is purchased there are annual costs related to the current math program. That’s what this money was used for and the remaining went back to surplus, except in the case of the literacy materials that were needed at the elementary schools last year. All great purchases and needed materials for the students in the district. The Board will make a careful and responsible decision about the math program when we feel it is in the best interest of Timberlane. To not do so would be irresponsible. Unfortunately, the way budgeting works, we have to plan as if we will be making those decisions, sometimes a year ahead of time, not knowing if those decisions will actually be made. If we don’t plan this way we won’t have the money in place to make purchases related to those decisions. It’s tricky to line things up this way. You know all of this, I’m not sure why you keep beating this dead horse.

    Yes, the Board is considering full time K for all but we are only considering it. You already have it in the budget for ’15-’16. Same with the transformer situation at TRMS. This is an issue the Board hasn’t been informed of. There are some opinions out there but we don’t have an official word on it yet and it has not been mentioned to us in the 7 years I’ve been on the Board. You already have this in the budget for ’15-’16, I think you’re premature and irresponsible to do so. In your own words:

    “I will also note as a personal opinion: what has the SAU learned from the election results of March? Pad the budget even more. Put anything and everything into it that you can; $500,000.00 for transformers, $600,000.00 (+) for free FT kindergarten, a 3rd year of the one-time $260,000.00 math program; to name a few. No big ticket items will go to warrant as they should be; God forbid the people make the decision in this democratic society.”

    No decisions have been made about warrant articles either. This is all speculation on your part and it’s also irresponsible. A disservice to the people of Sandown.

    Regarding the enrollment and FTE situation . This is again something that is very complex and misunderstood. Even when you attempt to inform folks about it here on this blog they continue to ignore the explanation. Arthur Green said at the last Bud Com meeting “Staffing has in no way kept any sort of proportion to enrollment. That’s why our student teacher ratio has gone so low. That’s why our cost per pupil has gone so high.” He’s correct and that’s an expected result based on School Board policy. There’s no surprise there for those who understand how these types of things work.

    • QUOTE: “Staffing has in no way kept any sort of proportion to enrollment. That’s why our student teacher ratio has gone so low. That’s why our cost per pupil has gone so high.” He’s correct and that’s an expected result based on School Board policy. There’s no surprise there for those who understand how these types of things work.

      Yes, Mr. Collins. We know exactly how these things work and it is wrong, misguided, a disservice to taxpayers and of no benefit to students.

      • Rob Collins

        The only alternative is to increase class size throughout the district. Is that what you’re advocating for? 30 first graders per class? Maybe bus kids to different schools depending on enrollments in each town? Is that what you want? Does that benefit students? Taxpayers?

        These aren’t acceptable options as far as I’m concerned.

      • Hardly the only option. That’s exactly the mentality that has gotten us into the position we are in. Arthur Green’s budget committee presentation demonstrated that other comparable districts have far fewer staff, a lower cost per pupil and better academic results. Perhaps you missed it: http://vimeo.com/album/255893/video/110020865
        It begins at 2:26:01.

      • Rob Collins

        I’ve watched it and his information is incomplete, incorrect in some cases and very skewed. In fact, the final conclusions don’t even make any sense. The only statement he made that made complete sense was the one I quoted above and I don’t believe he understands why, nor do you it seems.

        If increasing class size is not the only alternative then what else is there? Arthur didn’t tell anyone in his presentation and nothing has been mentioned here. How can you decrease staffing and not impact students in a negative manner? How can it be done without increasing class size?

        You have this entire blog to display your answer, so far I’ve seen nothing…

      • You are welcome and in fact invited to make specific criticisms of his presentation. The same old smears are tiresome. State a factual statement Arthur made, then refute it. State a specific argument and then challenge the underlying assumptions. That is the way honest intellectual argument is made. “Incomplete, incorrect and skewed” doesn’t do the trick. It’s code for “I don’t like what is being said, but I can’t refute it.”

  6. *

    In response to the only alternative to increase class size.

    Another alternative to staff reduction that would not exceed current policy class limits by grade could be to offer one combined grade classroom at each grade level. This was previously offered by the district and parents were able to opt in to this by choice.
    1st/2nd grade, 2nd/3rd grade, 3rd/4th grade.

    • Rob Collins

      I’m not aware of the combined classes you speak of. I do remember “looping” classes where students would have the same teacher for both first and second grade. This is very different from what you are describing.

      Do you recall what year “combined” classrooms were employed?

      • *

        Response to :”Do you recall what year “combined” classrooms were employed?”

        The years I know of were late 1990’s through mid 2000 ( 2004, 2005,)

        Regrading your comment below if you reread the quote you post of Mr. Green’s, it states ” school taxes are estimated”. You answered your own question. Mr. Green’s prior blog entry had explained why the school tax impact was less of a percentage increase. The comment of “I don’t think so Donna.” does nothing to help us with those real increased tax bills due to school tax.

        Rob Collins
        November 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm
        In his own words:

        “For context, $2 million was added to the tax bill in the current 2014/15 year and school taxes are estimated to go up about 8.2% in Sandown, and 9.1% in Danville.”

        Rob Collins
        November 5, 2014 at 10:09 am
        So when Arthur said, “The taxpayers need the district to limit its spending to preserve our accustomed $2 million surplus and prevent a third year of big tax increases in Sandown and Danville,” he didn’t mean total tax increase? I don’t think so Donna.

  7. Shawn O'Neil

    Donna,
    Rob is leaving specific criticism of Arthur’s presentation with respect to student teacher ratios for various grades. Arthur’s presentation is centered around FTE with respect to teachers and a reduction is implied.

    From Rob Collins:
    The only alternative is to increase class size throughout the district. Is that what you’re advocating for? 30 first graders per class? Maybe bus kids to different schools depending on enrollments in each town? Is that what you want? Does that benefit students? Taxpayers?
    End Rob Collins

    If you are advocating for a higher student teacher ratio then bring that up as a debatable item with respect to School Board policy. Let it live/die on its own merits.

    You want some advice on saving dollars for the school district? Combine the two elementary schools in Sandown. If anyone took the time to do the analysis of that project presented years ago we would have been saving dollars already. I supported it then.

    • Arthur talks of student/teacher ratio and Rob talks of class size. These are two different things. Increasing the number of students to teachers does not necessarily affect class size because there are many certified teachers who don’t have a classroom. Arthur never said a target student/teacher ratio needs to be applied school by school. It needs to be established as a baseline target for the entire district and this does not necessarily need to affect class size depending on how it is implemented. Take Danville’s case study for instance.

      This is from Arthur’s guest post in September entitled “Staffing Case Study.” https://timberlaneandsandown.wordpress.com/2014/09/
      “In Danville, the average class size of 17.5 students coexists with a student/teacher ratio of 9.7, because there are 25.3 teachers and only 14 classes… It is also interesting to note that the 300 students at this school are supported by a total staff of 67.1 adults in all roles.. an overall ratio of 4.5 students for each adult. Also, setting aside administrative and support staff there are a total of 56 educators and instructional aides taking care of the needs of the 300 students, a ratio of 5.4 students per educator.”

      67 staff for 300 students! This might be a justified burden on taxpayers and families if we were getting good results but our comparable districts do better with considerably fewer staff. It is a fallacy that more staff equals better education. Timberlane has refused to make staffing reductions to match declining enrollment.

      • Shawn O'Neil

        Donna,
        Class size is an overly contributing factor in defining student/teacher ratio. Your comment relative to “teachers who don’t have classroom” I would respond what duties are they preforming? Are they working with students one-on-one for some IEP issue? You/Arthur group these teachers without a classroom into a basket of teachers who are in a traditionally role of heading the classroom. This is not the case. What are the IEP hours that are needed at the various school in our district relative to the other districts you are referencing.

        I would also like you to comment on my previous question about the combination of the two elementary school in Sandown. Do you support such a project?

      • Shawn,

        I would have to think about this possibility of combining the schools again before venturing an opinion. I was opposed to it initially because Sandown North has a lot of serious drawbacks not least of which is inadequate playground area and the fact it is surrounded by swamps which resulted in children being kept inside for a good part of nice weather. I’m very conscious of the huge overhead of keeping two buildings open also. I was hoping the CIP committee would be looking at all the pros and cons of such a proposal again to give me a chance to weigh the idea afresh.

        Yes, spec ed teachers are included in the student/teacher ratio but Arthur’s staffing reduction proposal added back all the special ed teachers and aids and still we are grossly overstaffed and could lose 76 positions and not even get close to what superior districts are working with.

      • Rob Collins

        Arthur being the same guy who “estimated” the tax rate in Danville and Sandown and got it REALLY wrong? 8.2% increase in Sandown is what he “estimated.”

        In his own words:

        “For context, $2 million was added to the tax bill in the current 2014/15 year and school taxes are estimated to go up about 8.2% in Sandown, and 9.1% in Danville.”

        What’s the increase in Sandwon? 1.9%? Did BOS add more to bring it down further? He wasn’t close in Danville either.

        Read Arthur’s “estimate” for yourself here on this blog:
        https://timberlaneandsandown.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/timberlane-voters-act-now-to-prevent-tax-increase/

      • Arthur was always talking about SCHOOL TAX increases not overall town tax rates. You are confusing school taxes with the overall tax rate to serve your purpose, which is to discredit Arthur, but it is incorrect.

        Danville’s school taxes increased 6.8% and Sandown’s by 5.9%. Still horrible. Arthur will be replying soon.

      • Rob Collins

        So when Arthur said, “The taxpayers need the district to limit its spending to preserve our accustomed $2 million surplus and prevent a third year of big tax increases in Sandown and Danville,” he didn’t mean total tax increase? I don’t think so Donna.

        You’ve been ringing the bell of “big tax increases” for so long and now, when the real tax rates are in, you’re going to try to re-frame the issue when it doesn’t break your way?

        Also, you do realize that Sandown and all of the other towns are one in the same with Timberlane. Our schools are Timberlane. We don’t have Sandown schools or Danville schools, we have Timberlane schools. Our School Board members and Budget Committee members are from the four communities. Our elementary schools, in the words of your husband, are “neighborhood” schools. We are Timberlane.

        Parsing the tax rate into its different components really doesn’t matter at the end of the day, it is what it is AND, for Sandown, it is only an increase of 1.9% (MAXIMUM).

      • Arthur Green

        … to Mr. Collin’s comment about the estimated tax impact (Nov. 4 12:54 PM):

        At deliberative in February, the administration provided an estimated tax impact of the recommended budget and warrant articles.

        After the elections, which resulted in default budgets for the school district and SAU, and approved the support workers collective agreement, Donna Green asked the administration to provide a re-estimate of the tax impact based on the voted results. This request was denied. Since this was not forthcoming from the administration, I was obliged to estimate the impact from the information provided at deliberative.

        I am proud to have brought the tax consequences of the voted budget to the attention of the taxpayers.

        I’m proud of doing whatever I can to hold the SB to accountability for tax consequences of their decisions.

        I’m proud that the public interest we created has embarrassed the administration and the SB into taking discretionary steps in Sept. to mitigate this year’s tax impact (discussed in detail here: https://timberlaneandsandown.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/your-sandown-representatives-getting-results/). The tax impact I forecast is what we would have paid if these steps had not been taken.

        I expect that Mr. Collins is proud of the tax increase he is bringing to his neighbors in Danville.

        PS: Mr. Collins disingenuously conflates the overall town increase in Sandown (1.9%) and the school tax increase (about 6%). He knows the difference.

      • Rob Collins

        Arthur – Any way you cut it you got it wrong. It’s OK to admit it. What you were attempting to do and the massive inaccuracy of it is the reason why the SAU doesn’t typically produce tax rate estimates (except at the deliberative session in an effort to give the voters some idea of the tax impact of the budget and other various warrant articles).

        Your most recent estimate for Sandown was an increase of 8.2% in the school tax rate but you also noted in your post to this blog “a third year of big tax increases in Sandown.” To me, that speaks of Sandown residents total tax bill. I believe that was your implication.

        You can be proud all you want about bringing “the tax consequences of the voted budget to the attention of the taxpayers,” but if I brought the wrong information I wouldn’t be proud of that.

        The ACTUAL increase in the school tax rate for Sandwon is 5.17%, not 8.2% as you estimated and not 5.9% as Donna posted above. Not sure what numbers you guys are looking at over there…..

        The ACTUAL increase in Sandown’s overall tax rate is 1.85%. I guess you could qualify that as “big” but I think most people would not..

        Your comment above (10:08 PM), “the tax impact I forecast is what we would have paid if these steps had not been taken,” is completely false. The reason the tax rate settled out to where it is, is not because we were “embarassed” and took steps but rather because Medicare reimbursements were robust and another HeatlTrust refund was included in the surplus, you detailed these things in your post. In September we discussed the possibility of increasing the surplus further or maintaining the retention fund. We increased the surplus BUT even if we hadn’t the tax rate still would not have been close to what you estimated.

        You seem to be taking credit for everything you consider to be “positive” in the district, whether or not you have anything to do with it , and you seem to push off on to others everything you consider to be “negative.” It’s disturbing that you think the tax rate was solely a result of your efforts. I guess your horribly wrong “estimate” was somehow a bluff to get everyone to move in your direction? You didn’t increase medicare reimbursement and you didn’t increase catastrophic aid. You also had nothing to do with the HealthTrust refund and how it would be utilized. You really didn’t have anything to do with the retention fund. All of these things were either fortuitous findings or decisions made by the Board and it was these things and these things only that brought the tax rate to where it is today. Not you, not me, not Donna…the School Board. Believe it or not, nobody I know on the Board (except maybe your wife) checks in with you or Cathy Gorman before we deliberate and vote on anything.

        Your line of thinking on this is delusional and completely ridiculous.

      • And the decision (vote) by the board to put less money into the Fund Balance Retention had nothing to do with lowering taxes? Of course it did. The tax projections were done based on information provided at Deliberative. The revenue side changed because of more generous LGC revenue which the administration decided to book into this year’s revenue – unlike a decision they made in the previous year which was to put it into surplus for revenue in the next budget year. Yes, Mr. Collins, there are a lot of factors that affect taxes but our decisions have a lot to do with them and those of us in Sandown who care are affecting those decisions. Hardly delusional. What is delusional is to think this district can continue on its merry way unchecked by overburdened taxpayers and families.

  8. Rob Collins

    Please elaborate and detail for us which of the “many” certified teachers at Danville Elementary you feel we can let go and still maintain and even improve academic performance.

    • That is the job of the superintendent. I wouldn’t presume to micromanage. If you are curious on your own account, you might want to speak to other similar district superintendents producing superior results with fewer staff and less money.

      • Rob Collins

        No offense Donna but I can’t take you seriously when you say you wouldn’t presume to micromanage. You must be saying this tongue in cheek….

        You would presume to say we are overstaffed and you would presume to say that we can do at least as good if not better academically with less staff but you wouldn’t presume to say which teachers need to go? You leave it in the Superintendent’s hands? What if the Superintendent believes we are not overstaffed? What if he thinks Arthur’s call to eliminate 10% of the staffing at Timberlane is way too much? Would you be OK with that?

      • I believe the superintendent would execute in effective detail whatever the school board in broad strokes directed him to do.

  9. Sheila Johannesen

    Donna, keep up the good work.

  10. *

    “The ACTUAL increase in the school tax rate for Sandwon is 5.17%”
    “The ACTUAL increase in the school tax rate for Sandwon is 5.17%, not 8.2% as you estimated and not 5.9% as Donna posted above. Not sure what numbers you guys are looking at over there…..”
    stated by Rob Collins November 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Sandown’s school tax rate was $18.37 increased to $19.45 = $1.08 increase

    What is P% of X ?
    P% * X = Y
    What is % of ?

    Answer:

    Converting percentage to a decimal:
    5.17% = 5.17 / 100 = 0.0517

    What is 5.17% of 18.37
    = 5.17% * 18.37
    = 0.0517 * 18.37
    = 0.949729

    5.17% or $0.95 does not = the $1.08 Sandown School Tax Increase

    As Mr. Collins wrote to Mr. Green same apparently goes for you
    “Any way you cut it you got it wrong. It’s OK to admit it.”

    What is P% of X ?
    P% * X = Y
    What is % of ?

    Answer:

    Converting percentage to a decimal:
    5.88% = 5.88 / 100 = 0.0588

    What is 5.88% of 18.37
    = 5.88% * 18.37
    = 0.0588 * 18.37
    = 1.080156

    or 5.88% Rounded up to 5.9%

    Mr. Collins your really should apologize to the Green’s for your 5.17% calculation error and for telling them they were wrong for the 5.9%. After all they were correct and are kind enough to post your comments on their blog.

    • Rob Collins

      Thanks for the tutorial *.

      No need for an apology, you and others forgot the state education tax rate. Add that in, rework your numbers and let me know how they come out.

      • You have a standard style of argument. When pressed, you change the subject. We are talking about the local school tax rate percentage increase. Pure and simple.

      • Rob Collins

        Donna, the “state education tax rate” is collected by the town and sent directly to Timberlane. If you’re going to talk about the Timberlane budget and its impact on local taxation you have to include the state education tax rate.

        Look it up.

      • You are changing the subject.

  11. Pingback: More on Bloated Staffing | timberlaneandsandown

Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s