Come June 8, we have another opportunity to reject Question 1 (formerly Question 1A). It was a bad idea in November, and it has not improved with age. Question 1, if adopted, would create a situation only slightly less chaotic than the proposed tax cap animal that will be trotted out on the ballot in November.

Question 1 is being touted as the answer to Maine taxpayers’ dream. In fact, it promises a nightmare.

It is a knee-jerk reaction claimed to assuredly result in a reduction in local property taxes. This is dandy little formula that would have the state of Maine guarantee to pick up 55 percent of the cost of public K-12 education now.

That figure is presently somewhere around 43 percent and 45 percent. Would it be nice to go to 55 percent? Must assuredly. Would it be nice to go to 55 percent without impacting other state programs? Oh, yes. But that will happen when pigs fly.

As an aside, before we get too deep into this, it’s worth reminding the Question 1 sales people, including some regional town managers, that despite their claims to the contrary, the state never – that’s never – promised to go to 55 percent. It was not a part of the 1984 overhaul. A not-too-careful and honest reading of MRSA Title 20-A, Section 15602 (that’s one little piece of education law) erases the “promise” allegation. It reads, “It is the intent of the Legislature to provide at least 55 percent of the cost of the total allocation from General Fund revenue sources or a percentage no less than that provided in the year prior to the year of allocation, whichever is greater.”

That’s a far cry from a promise.

Estimates are when state aid to public education runs up the ladder from its present 45 percent to Question 1’s dreamy 55 percent, we will have to find a rainbow with a $250 million pot at the end.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure if the state share of education funding is draining an additional $250 million overnight out of a stressed state budget some relatively major adjustments will be required.

Pure logic, even impure logic for that matter, says if the state is forced to feed a quarter of a billion dollars into education, it will trigger one of two, or perhaps both, relatively simplistic and not too terribly attractive results.

Services will be cut or taxes will be raised.

The irony of this scenario is proponents of Question 1 would have us believe that should voters give their blessing it will lead to reduced taxes. They seriously, apparently, believe this even though it defies rational thinking.

Inside this 55 percent animal is 100 percent funding for special education. You’d best understand this is the ultimate in “no free lunch.” First, admittedly the 100 percent apparently is 100 percent of the state share of special education. The feds, you will recall, said they’d pick up 40 percent of the cost. Unfortunately they have neglected to fulfill that promise. Hence, the state and locals are left with about 85 percent, plus/minus, of the ever rising – and it is rising – cost of special education.

Take a look at that special education deal. Pay attention to this. Question 1 does not say distribution of state funds for special education costs will be commensurate with the funding formula. It will not be “high” for high receiving districts and “low” for low receiving districts. Under Question 1, the state will provide every district, regardless of its fiscal capacity with 100 percent of its special education costs. It also means that special education costs incurred in the wealthier districts will be paid in part by taxes from the less wealthy districts. Robin Hood in reverse.

What’s the alternative? There was no tax reform legislation per se enacted by the Legislature. That’s an unfortunate fact. But there is a plan to help get to the 55 percent level for education and do it in a responsible way.

The Legislature did pass and Gov. Baldacci did sign something called Property Tax Reform Through Increased Education Funding, which moved through the legislative process as LD 1924.

In its most simplistic terms, LD 1924 is an revised and updated version of the mechanism by which the state will fund Essential Programs and Services (EPS), enacted previously. Now that elusive 55 percent target is in law as a “we will.” But the deal is “we will” not do it all in one mind boggling, budget busting leap. The 55 percent plateau will be reached in steps beginning with fiscal year 2006 when the target is 52.6 percent.

In other words, come January 2005 Gov. Baldacci, the Appropriations Committee, Education Committee and their colleagues in the new Legislature will have their collective feet to the fire to come up with the bucks. That ratchets up the K-12 target by about $70 million since the FY 2005 appropriation was $20 million less than requested.

But that’s only one side of the coin. The other side is local property tax relief. It runs like this, (quotes from L.D. 1924): the “full value education mill rate must decline” over the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. It “may not exceed 9 mills for 2005-06” and “may not exceed 8 mills in fiscal year 2009-10.”

Should the local district wish to fund programs or activities that do not fall within the EPS package and exceed the 8 or 9 mill lid, the folks in the district may do so only with constituent approval. The vehicle to achieve this added funding would be a separate article, similar to current “Other Local” appropriation

In order to close the loop, the state would be responsible for the amount raised by the maximum mill rate and the recognized EPS costs.

So, with a reduced local share and an increased state share of education funding, the presumption is that over the long haul (five years) we will enjoy reduced property taxes. That assumes, of course, that municipalities don’t use up the newly discovered change and crank up local expenditures.

There’s a team in place to measure the effectiveness of the effort. It’s called the Municipal Budget Analysis Committee. Its task is to annually check to see if this program is working – and working means is leading to reduced local property taxes.

Therefore, there is no logical reason to vote for Question 1. Kill it and get the state on a glide path to reasonable, rational improvements to education funding. And at the same time ensure adequate, equitable education opportunities for Maine’s students as envisioned by and built into the Essential Programs and Services.

Jack McKee is a former member of the state Board of Education and MSAD 58 Board of Directors. He lives in Kingfield.

Copy the Story Link