i whitby Voice of the County Town -Put Michael lan Burgess, Publisher • Managing Editor 1 lt: il J J i8tDy 8 VI aaapruepeieuay wneu and petedu y vvnitby res;idents for Wfitby residents. ,llshed every Wednesday by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Inc. Phone 668-6111 The Free Press Building, 131 Brock Street North, P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. MICHAEL KNELL Communty Edlçtr CONWAY DOBBS Advertising Manager Second Class Mail Registration No. 5351 1984 education budget is a sham, our trust ees should cati for a new one From these facts it is not difficult to surmise that the 1984 budget statement of the Durham Board of Education is not worth the paper that It is written on. It Is not an accurate statement of the board's financial position, policy and needs. It is not a trùthful reflection of the board's anticipated 1984 revenue or expenditures. And from this, one can easily and logically sur- mise that because they are going to earn more the board Is going to spend more than the $150.5 million they referto in the budget document. The issue at hand here is not the education of our children. What we are questioning here is the means by which the cost of educating our children is determined. It is obvious that the taxpayer can no longer have faith or confidence in the board of education. Deliberate or not, the Durham Board of Education and, more specifically, its individual members have misled and misinformed the taxpayer to whom it is ultimately responsible. It would be far too easy for this newspaper to raise cries of incompetence, foolishness, stupidity and irresponsibility. But we do not believe that these are the fundamental causes of the problems facing the board. However, we do not believe we are out of place to request, even demand, that Whitby's two representatives on the Durham Board of Education take up the taxpayer's cause and fight for financial responsibility. They should tell the board to remain true to its 6.81 per cent statement and in the light of these facts should call for a new budget and a new financial outlook on the part of the board. This newspaper would like to urge ail Whitby residents who are unhappy about this year's tax increase to call either Trustee John Buchanan at 579-0878 or Trustee Ian Brown at 668-7278 and voice their objections. By the way, Brown Is chairman of the board's finance committee and was responsible for this year's budget. If they are not willing to do this, then they should re-evaluate their position on the board and determine whether or not they can adequately fulfill their obligations to the people who elected them to office. For if they are not willing to seek the truth and defend our rights then this newspaper wili not let either them or the tax- payers of this municipality forget it. We're puzzled. The fact is, we're more than puz- zled. If the truth were known, we're down right confused. A few weeks ago, this newspaper reported that the Durham Board of Education lntended to raise the property taxes of the average Whitby homeowner by 6.81 per cent. According to the figures supplied by the board the Increase in the mili rate would result in an average jump of about $35,60. In this document, it ls recorded that the Durham Board of Education would impose upon the Town of Whitby a levy of $5,504,270 for elementary school purposes and $5,320,272 for secondary school purposes for a total requisition of $10,824,542. Now, doesn't that seem to be fairly straight forward? It did, until last week when Town of Whitby treasurer AI Claringbold submitted his report on the total mili rate for council's consideration. Low and behold, the requisition demanded by the Board of Education ls not $10,824,542. It ls now $11 ,083,460, a difference of $258,918. Accordlng to Claringbold, this difference may be accounted for by the board's share of the town's tax revenue from Bell Canada. The treasurer expiai ned that since it is difficuIt to levy conventional property taxes on telephone wire and cable, the municipality receives five per cent of ail Bell Canada revenue earned In Whitby of which the board, of course, gets its share. Weil, that's one difference accounted for. Another difference ls that, according to the board's figures the total pet requisition ôn the Town of Whitby lncreased by $1,011,769. But Claringbold says the increase was $1,149,763 - a difference of $137,994. Does anybody know why this ls? We don't. However, we've saved the biggest and the worst surprise for last. What really counts at budget time ls the bottom Une, the tax hike imposed on the average residential property taxpayer. Well, the board says that the tax increase.for Whitby should only be 6.81 per cent. That's what it says-in page 26of this year's budget document. Low and behold, Claringbold's report says that this just ain't so. According to our treasurer the tax increase this year for Durham Board of Education purposes wili be a nice, round 10 per cent. Claringbold states (andlie's the guy who should know - after ail he sends out the tax bill) that in 1983 the property tax on a home assessed at $5,000 for education purposes was $583. In 1984, that figure jumps to $641,50 - an increase of $58.50 or 10 per cent. But according to the board's mill rate of 124.02, the average Whitby tax bill should be $620.10. That's a difference of $21.40. We asked Claringbold for an explanation of these differences and the answer we received suprised us. Under law, it ls he, not the board, who establishes the miil rate. He bases this year's educational mill rate on the net levy requisition lmposed by the Durham Board of Education. As far as he ls concerned the levy imposed on the town le just over $11 million resulting in the above described 10 per cent tax increase. Those of us who are not confused by the facts Just related should be angry and those who are confused should be angry for that very reason. PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 1984, WHITBY FREE PRESS lit .t2V~'I1~¶i¶~j~ ô h~1 616h ~ i L.~.