BIDDEFORD — Only five Biddeford residents spoke at a public hearing about the proposed 2010-11 fiscal year budget on Monday, which was held at Biddeford High School’s Steve White Gym.

Most of the comments about the proposed $54.1 million budget focused on school-related issues and a request to add money to the budget to begin planning a new, 10-year Comprehensive Plan that would direct the city’s future plans.

All portions of the budget were up for discussion on Monday.

As proposed, the budget would require a 2.7 cent increase to the tax rate, to $14.80 per $1,000, because of an increase in the amount of taxes the city must pay to the county.

The proposed city portion of the budget is $23.1 million, a .52 percent increase over the previous year.

If passed as proposed, the Kindergarten-12 education portion of the budget would decrease by 4.76 percent from the prior fiscal year, to $29.1 million.

Although the tax rate will remain nearly flat, if the proposed budget is passed as is, resident Ronald Peaker said he thought there would still be some ways to reduce the property tax burden.

“People just don’t have the money” to pay their taxes, he said.

Most of his comments were directed at the school portion of the budget.

Peaker criticized the budget schedule, which calls for City Council members to cast their final votes on the budget on June 3, prior to the state-mandated public referendum vote on the school budget that is planned for June 8.

More cost-cutting measures should be put in place in the School Department, said Peaker, such as decreasing administrative overhead and merging the city and school Finance Departments ”“ an idea that has been discussed by the council.

While Peaker asked for more cuts in the education budget, resident Wayne McBreairty spoke in favor of increasing it.

Although there is an increase in the proposed city portion of the budget, by $121,000, said McBreairty, on the school side there is a $1.4 million reduction.

“I ask, where the fairness is in that?” said McBreairty. “Our students cannot take any more cuts.

He questioned the wisdom of decreasing the facilities maintenance portion of the school budget by $464,000. Lack of maintenance over the years has been blamed for the need for a multi-million dollar renovation of the high school.

He also spoke against a $200,000 cut in special education instruction, but Mayor Joanne Twomey said the reason for the reduction was that there are fewer students in need of services.

Both McBreairty and Peaker spoke against the city expenditure of $92,000 to pay for transporting students who attend the private St. James School.

Several residents spoke in favor of adding money to the budget to pay for a new Comprehensive Plan for the city. Conservation Commission Chairman Denis Rioux, who was involved in creating the last Comprehensive Plan, said the state recommends updating such plans every 10 years.

Comprehensive Plans are used to guide growth, by creating a 10-year vision for the city’s future.

In 1995, the city started work on the last Comprehensive Plan, said Rioux, it was approved four years later in 1999. Work on a new plan should begin now, he said.

For the previous plan, the state gave the city an estimated $30,000 to $40,000, said Rioux, but no state money is expected for work on a new plan.

When members of the public concluded their comments, Twomey said, “these are not easy times.”

She said both the City Council and the School Committee did a good job in creating their parts of the budget and keeping costs down.

“Are there still things we can do?” asked Twomey. “Absolutely. But we can’t make the money.”

After the meeting, some members of the school committee expressed surprise that no one from the public spoke against the teacher and staff reductions that will be required if the proposed budget is passed. Twelve positions would be affected.

The first reading of the city and county sides of the proposed budget is scheduled for May 17. May 20 is the date for the first reading of the school budget.

Public comment is allowed at both those meetings.

On June 3, City Council is scheduled to hold the final vote on all portions of the budget. Public comment is only allowed on changes to the proposed budget.

— Staff Writer Dina Mendros can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 324 or dmendros@journaltribune.com.