Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board told $87,000 state increase leaves Saco schools with near‑flat subsidy; local taxpayers could shoulder rising costs
Summary
Assistant Superintendent Parkhurst said the district’s preliminary state subsidy rose about $87,000, but property valuation gains and a 1% pupil decline mean the net change is narrow; Parkhurst warned construction aid cannot fund ongoing operations.
Assistant Superintendent Parkhurst told the Saco School Board on Feb. 11 that preliminary state subsidy figures show a modest increase for the district but that local taxpayers could still bear much of expected operating‑cost growth.
“We have a property valuation increase of about 11% compared to the previous year,” Parkhurst said, explaining how higher local valuation can reduce state subsidy gains for a district. Parkhurst said the district’s state share rose “just over $87,000” but placed that in context against an EPS allocation figure cited as “$41,000,787,” noting the net is roughly a 0.41% change and ‘‘any increase … would have to be shouldered by local taxpayers’’ if operating costs rise above that rate.
Parkhurst emphasized that a 1% decrease in pupil counts — particularly among multilingual learner students who carry additional weighting in the formula — reduces the district’s subsidy. “So with our decrease being in that particular subgroup, we lose kind of a disproportionate amount per pupil in terms of the decrease in the population,” Parkhurst said.
On construction funding, Parkhurst said additional state construction aid will offset debt service linked to school construction but ‘‘won't be able to become part of our operational money that we would use to fund the budget.’’ He told the board these figures remain preliminary and that legislative action after the state budget could change final allocations.
A school board member asked that, when the administration presents budget proposals, staff clearly lay out fixed and contractual cost drivers (for example, collective‑bargaining increases, insurance, outside services) and identify what revenue gaps (state or federal) would fall to local taxpayers. The member said such transparency would help the public understand the reasons behind any proposed tax increase.
Parkhurst said district staff will continue to refine the budget numbers and that Finance Committee briefings will follow as the district moves into FY27 budget development.
