LISBON
For a second time, the town council on Tuesday night reduced the amount of spending proposed by the school committee for the 2015-16 fiscal year.
The reductions were made Tuesday after the council held a public hearing on the school committee’s proposed $15.47 million spending plan.
The council again made reductions to a handful of budget articles, reducing overall expenditures to $15.05 million. The changes include the use of an additional $65,000 in state subsidy the school department learned it will receive after voting on the second budget in June.
Eleven articles were rejected by the council and left the school committee to determine how the money is spent in those cost centers. Councilor Gregg Garrison was alone in his opposition to reducing local spending. Councilor Mark Lunt, who also opposed council reductions made to the school committee’s initial budget on May 19, was absent Tuesday due to illness.
The council reduced the school committee’s original proposed $15.5 million spend- ing plan to $15.1 million in May. That version of the spending plan was, in turn, rejected by voters on June 9 with a vote of 790-308.
The discussion Tuesday was very similar to the debate that took place on May 19, and residents reminded the council the first budget was overwhelmingly rejected because it was too low.
According to Superintendent Richard Green, the school committee’s proposed $15.47 million spending plan was a 3.5 percent increase that would keep local spending flat so there would be no increase in taxes.
The town council’s proposed school budget will go before voters on Aug. 11.
The council also cut $255,742 in excess proceeds of bonds issued for the construction of a new gym construction to pay debt service on the project.
Councilors then voted to cut the $48,809 in proceeds from the track project bonds to pay debt service on the track.
dmoore@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less