For those who like to do their homework

VIDEO: Click image above for an outstanding video explaining financial information about Question #2.

John Bohenko is Saco’s City Administrator. To assist Saco voters in making a decision, he has crunched the numbers on the fiscal impact of a YES vote on Question #2.

Is this a reasonable and prudent investment?

No municipality ever relishes the prospect of having to make large capital investments in critical infrastructure. Presenting taxpayers with these choices is difficult, but wise infrastructure investment can also pay extraordinary dividends --- remember Biddeford’s painful decision to buy and close the MERC incinerator in 2012? Saco’s voters are now as well asked to make a difficult, once-in-a-generation infrastructure decision: to invest in the City’s children or not.

Bottom line

Saco’s City Administrator John Bohenko is independent of the Saco School Department. He works for the municipal side of City government. Mr. Bohenko’s professional analysis is that if Question #2 passes, the owner of a single-family residence valued at $412,000 will pay $284 a year to cover Saco’s share of building the proposed new school complex. An owner whose home is worth more will pay more, an owner whose home is worth less than $412,000 would pay less than $284. That represents just a 0.069% increase in your tax bill. That modest obligation expires after 20 years.

Another way to look at the financial impact is that for every $1000 in value for real estate that you own, you would pay 69 cents annually. Again, that obligation expires after twenty years. CLICK HERE for a video produced by the City of Saco explaining all the financial information.

A crucial consideration

Without a doubt, the most attractive feature of the current proposal is that city, school and citizen leaders have invested thousands of hours to assemble a package that secures $101 million in state funding, and caps Saco’s share of spending at just $39 million. By comparison, Cumberland/North Yarmouth taxpayers were presented with a plan for which those towns would pay $82 million dollars. Cape Elizabeth faced a proposal for $100 million and Scarborough $160 million. Saco would pay $39 million if Question #2 passes. To summarize, Saco will pay just 28% of the cost, while the State of Maine will pay 72% of the cost. 

Back-up plan?

Good question. First, consider what happened in the last 23 years:

  • 2001: State of Maine rejects funding for Young School

  • 2004: Young School condemned and torn down, mid-year displacement of students to modular classrooms

  • 2016: City leaders attempt project to self-fund school construction, proposal does not advance to a vote

  • 2023: Site committee gains straw vote approval for a 2-building solution

  • 2024: City Council approves Referendum Question #2 for June 11 ballot

The City does not have a back-up plan. If Question #2 fails, Saco residents will face extensive repairs on buildings that long ago reached their expected lifespan. No study has been completed quantifying the escalating repair cost after further inaction, but it is likely to be in the millions. It is also possible that Saco taxpayers might have to fund new construction in the future without any assistance from the State of Maine. That would be very expensive.

Vote absentee starting May 13, or in-person on June 11