Superintendent’s Corner
Now that the first version of the budget, including town assessments, is making the rounds the number of questions, assertions, and rumors are growing rapidly. As much as I’d prefer to write about student and staff activities, I know that without an appropriate budget the opportunities we offer to students would dramatically shrink. I hope that people are following the budget presentations, the documentation, and the questions and answers that are being consistently updated on the district’s website (www.grsd.org > Information > Budget > 2012 – 2013 Budget Documents).
This week, I’d like to address the assertion of the Town of Russell that the district has not absorbed our fair share of the loss of state and federal education funding, thereby placing an unfair burden on the towns. I’ll address this across several facets and begin with the easiest, this being the school committee electing to level-fund the budget for the 2012-2013 school year. While this doesn’t eliminate an increase in town assessments due to a loss in revenue, it does drop them considerably by reducing our expenditures.
This may be the appropriate time to point out that despite a reduction in state revenues from FY’09 to next year of $958,249 (or a loss 13.7%), the district did not just increase town assessments to make up this loss of revenue. In fact, the district’s budget over this time has decreased over $1.3 million (despite an inflation rate over 4.3%), and this decrease in district spending actually yielded an overall decrease in town assessments of nearly $250,000. There is no factual way that anyone can say that the school district has not made up for losses in revenue by reducing its budget; we not only made up for the losses in state revenue and inflation, we actually reduced overall assessments during this time period. Thus the majority of our towns will actually be assessed less for the FY’13 budget then they were in FY’09.
Now, why did assessments for two towns increase from FY’09 to FY’13, despite the combined town assessments total shrinking? Two things happened for the towns of Montgomery and Russell: their minimum assessment (that portion of the school assessment that is set, and required to be paid, by the state based partially upon the towns’ ability to pay) increased, and their percentage of students in the district increased.
The minimum assessment level will continue to increase over time for some towns as the state shifts the burden from those towns paying above their minimum assessment (in our case, Worthington) to those paying under their established minimum assessments, even if we were at the minimum spending level set by the state. From FY’09 to FY’13, Blandford’s minimum increased 9.07% (or $84,735), Huntington’s minimum increased 14.25% (or $158,052), Montgomery’s minimum increased 13.57% (or $85,266) and Russell’s has increased 15.61% (or $132,953).
From FY’09 – FY’13, student populations, based upon February 1st student numbers, have changed with the largest changes being a drop of 9.36% for Blandford, Montgomery’s increased 9.82%, Russell’s increased 20.03%, and Worthington dropped 24.92%. These changes in student percentages mean that the above minimum and non-foundation assessments also change – if student numbers decrease, assessments decrease and if student numbers increase, assessment amounts increase.
When this is all added together, it’s easy to see that towns having both an increase in minimum contributions and an increase in student percentages will see an increase in their overall assessments. Despite the district cutting enough expenses to actually drop the total assessment, a change in minimum assessments and student percentages mean that some towns see reductions in assessments while others see an increase in assessments.
To meet Russell’s demands for a zero increase in their assessment, the district would have to cut over $800,000 from its budget for FY’13, leading to a severe and negative impact on student services and opportunities. So, if the facts show that the district has made up the loss in revenue, and overall assessments are lower than in FY’09, do we as citizens want an adequate education for the children in our towns, or do we cut to the bone and impact all students so that some towns can avoid their financial obligation for assessment increases based upon the state-set minimum contributions and their growing percentage of students in the district?
