As Gateway moves forward with developing the budget for fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) there are some changes in student enrollments that may impact individual town assessments. For purposes of explanation, it should be noted there are two ‘official’ enrollment counts: one in October and one in March. These dates are set by the state and become the basis for funding decisions revolving around school choice and state aid to schools (Chapter 70). The enrollment counts on these dates also help establish each town’s contributions to the schools. The October census data provides an estimate of student numbers from each town as assessments are first calculated, with the March census finalizing student enrollment numbers for the final calculation of town assessments, as voted upon at annual town meetings.
You may recall that there are three distinct parts of a town’s assessment. The first is commonly referred to as the ‘Minimum Contribution’ that is set by the state using a complicated formula that factors in the relative ‘wealth’ of a community (in both property value and resident income) to determine much each town must pay for educating its children. The second part is referred to as ‘non-foundation’ and covers the costs of transportation and approved debt. As transportation is required under state law and all district debt has already been authorized by the towns, this assessment is also usually viewed as a required cost to the towns. The last piece, the so called ‘above minimum’ consists of the additional amount of money needed to run the district that is ‘above’ the state’s estimated costs (minimum contribution) of running schools, but is not tied to any specific program or activity. One of the most admitted shortfalls in funding schools is the notion of above minimum because the state has recognized, and has a blueprint for fixing this issue from a state-funded task force, that the state funds education far below what it actually should. As just one example, Gateway pays about a million dollars more in health insurance than the state formula allots, despite Gateway having significantly outperformed the state in holding these costs to a minimum (thanks to our participation in the Hampshire County Health Insurance Trust). What this example shows is that the formula for setting the costs of educating students (set decades ago under the auspices of educational reform) is far out of date and unrealistic. This is one of the reasons for the dramatic shift of financial support we’ve seen since 2003 that completely flipped the percentage of costs paid by the towns to educate their children (in 2003 the state paid approximately 60%, now the towns pay approximately 60% of the costs). So, even though the district’s budget hasn’t grown over the last decade and a half, the total assessment for the towns has grown.
How do student census numbers impact town assessments? The last two portions of a town’s assessment (non-foundation and above minimum) are driven by the percentage of students enrolled in the district from that town. Therefore as a town’s student numbers increase relative to the other 5 towns, so does its assessment. As noted earlier, the district bases the estimated assessments on the October student census and then corrects this after the March census. The census taken this October shows that student percentages for both Russell and Huntington have increased, which means that even if the combined assessment to all six towns remained identical to last year, both Russell and Huntington would see an increase in their assessments while the remaining four towns would see a decrease. As expected, if the total district assessment increases, this disparity in what each town pays will grow.
Coupled with changes in the state’s calculations of the minimum contribution, this means that even with a level funded budget, town assessments may change significantly from one fiscal year to another, even though Gateway is not spending any more money. As one can imagine, this can make discussions about a town’s fair share difficult when some have significant increases and others significant decreases. The problem for the district is that these shifts are not controlled by us but are developed under the constraints of state law, regulations, and policies that we all must operate under. As the district continues with the budget development process, we’ll share the process in an open manner as we have always done with the continuing expectation that knowledge of the facts is a strong tool for encouraging meaningful discussion and informed decisions at annual town meetings.
