Arthur Green Thanks Sandown BOS for School Tax Hike

This is what Arthur Green said to the Sandown Selectmen tonight.


The Timberlane School Board has disclosed that the estimated school tax increase on Sandown’s November tax bills will be about 9%, or about $500 on the typical home.

The seeds of this bitter fruit were planted in this room 1 year ago, at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting following Old Home Days, when 3 of the Selectmen still on this board voted to disband the committee which had been unanimously voted on behalf of the town to study the option of withdrawing from the Timberlane school district.

School taxes are skyrocketing for a single reason – the school district is grossly overspending and grossly overstaffed.

Mr. Tombarello, Mr. Goldman, and Mr. Trainor can claim credit for stifling the examination of alternatives which could have saved town taxpayers $1 million per year.

At school deliberative in 2014, Mrs. Green and I argued that Timberlane could operate perfectly well on $64 million, which was $3 million less than the district was proposing. We were met with threats of draconian cuts and draconian fees. What happened instead? Timberlane actually operated 2014/15 for $64 million, and the threatened apocalypse failed to arrive.

At school deliberative in 2015, we argued for a “responsible budget “ of $65 million, again about $3 million less than proposed. Again, apocalypse was threatened. Again, the district actually operated on $65 million in 2015/16, with none of the threatened horrors.

We were right in 2014, right in 2015, and again right this past winter that Sandown could operate an exceptional district on our own at a million dollar annual saving to taxpayers compared to Timberlane.

But the possibility of saving taxpayer dollars was not taken seriously by Mr. Tombarello, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Trainor.

By squashing the withdrawal study, you sent a clear signal to the school district that Sandown is willing to pay whatever the district demands. We are seeing the result.

Driving around town, I see a great many signs for Mr. Tombarello’s County Commissioner election. Every resident with one of those signs on their property is saying “thank you for raising my school tax $500 this year”.

 


 

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Sandown Issues

7 responses to “Arthur Green Thanks Sandown BOS for School Tax Hike

  1. Mark Richards

    A message worth repeating.

    Socket it to ’em. The crooks.

    • The Sandown Selectmen aren’t crooks. The three who voted to disband the Minority Committee’s study didn’t have the backbone to respect the voters’ will and crumbled under the pressure of an organized group who misrepresented the facts – and continue to do so. I believe Sandown voters were robbed of a full, fair and informed vote, so maybe that is from where your epithet derives.

      • Michelle

        CAW did not misrepresent any “facts” we interpreted an ambiguous RSA differently than your minority group did. This is exactly why the study group was put in place to clarify it. How do you expect voters to agree to an education plan without being absolutely certain that there wasn’t a substantial buy-out? The RSA , as it currently reads, clearly states that the withdrawing town forfeits any and all equity in the remaining school district. The caveat that the minorty group was banking on was the return of funds paid to other district schools. There was no provision for this and therefore it would have been a complete disservice and irresponsible to ask the residents of Sandown to back that plan. I am anxious to see the results of the RSA study that you, yourself, are now charged to review. Maybe then the voters will be given an opportunity to decide if a withdrawal is truly the right decision for the students and tax payers of our town

      • The big lie, among many, was that Sandown would have to pay a buyout. The Minority Committee’s withdrawal plan clearly stated withdrawal would not be feasible if a buyout (beyond the tiny amount we owed on the nearly paid down bond) was finally imposed. Not taking into account the many millions that Sandown taxpayers have put into the other buildings in the district is obviously grossly unfair. The other big lie was that the Majority Committee would impose a hostile withdrawal plan on Sandown. The Board of Education would never have allowed such a malicious interpretation of the RSA to prevail even if the members of the school board saw fit to play that hand.

  2. Michelle

    I don’t for a minute think that the BOE would have allowed a “hostile” withdrawal ( more like excommunication, I suppose). The argument for me was that if one was to interpret the “buy-out” with the same philosophy that CASE used, then what could stop Plaistow from initiating a buy out? They would be “held hostage” in the school district because they have the schools already in place? What benefit would a town have even had to enter into a cooperative if they are locked in but the other towns could leave unscathed? The BOE wouldn’t support that scenario either. In either case however, there was no provision for a local-town only- vote prior to a district wide vote. What if the other 3 towns felt that a plan that is put forth is f/d but the initiating town does not want to do so and doesnt find it f/s? Again- it’s all ambiguous

  3. Pingback: Confirmed: School Tax Bad News | 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s