Town Meetings, The Economy, and Budgets

It appears that very few school budgets went down to defeat this year.  In a fading economic environment, that's very interesting and tells me a few things. 

First, the economy in Vermont is not doing badly.  People have jobs and don't fear the near term economic future.  They didn't take out any economic frustrations they may have on the only tax they can vote on.

Second, the income sensitivity provisions of Act 60/68 are doing exactly what they were intended to, which is to limit homeowners' school property taxes to a fixed percent of their incomes.  If voters were afraid of losing their jobs, or of a reduction in their incomes, they were not worried about property taxes since their property taxes would go down along with their income.  And even if they were not afraid, they voted knowing that their taxes were limited.

Third, there is little reason for most taxpayers to be concerned about rising school costs putting significant upward pressure on their property tax bills.  Someone else will be paying most of the extra costs.  That came through loud and clear in my town meeting, and I assume in most.  School board members carefully pointed out how the rise in school spending would translate into a very small increase in income-sensitized property taxes. 

And fourth, the hold harmless provision of the school funding law means that even towns that are losing a significant number of students (and most towns are in that boat) won't suffer the full tax impact of that loss.

When all the school budgets are tabulated it will be very interesting to see how much school spending in Vermont in the aggregate, and on a per pupil basis, will increase in school year 2008-09.

Comments

[Jon Harrison]

Quite so. However, given what Washington and Montpelier require our schools to do, it seems to me that both the state and the federal government should be ponying up even more money to cover costs. My preference would be to restrict the role of these non-local actors. Mandates should be few -- far fewer than we have today. If we ever get back to local control, so that I have more say in what goes on in school, then I'll be prepared to bear more of the cost burden.

[Cairn Cross]

Holy Crap. Art Woolf sounds like George Cross. Hello Alice, get me out of the rabbit hole.

[Dennis Lukas]

Very interesting observation.If the voters fell that they are in a good finacial postion, to absorb increased school costs then Montpelier should receive this news as an incentive to increase state spending.

I would like to know what percentage of Veronters voted yesterday.

[GreggB]

Resignation perhaps? The budgets all seem to get passed in the end anyhow maybe folks don't think it matters anymore?

[G. Cross]

Well, Art, the problem with your arguement is that the school districts with the lowest percentages of income-sensitized homesteads in many cases have the highest equalized pupil expenditures. One more time - The problem is not income sensitivity. The problem is high spending districts keep spending even more. BTW, I hope Art is not beginning to sound like me. That would be very scarey!!

[Tom Licata]

The following is correspondence between Jeanne Collins, Superintendent of Burlington schools and myself. Note the "I'm not paying for it, somebody else is" attitude:

Jeanne,

We have a fiscal cancer.

You write: "Our budget is up 9.9% but 6.5% is covered by a revenue
increase." The budget is up over $4 million dollars. Somebody is paying for this, if not the taxpayers of Burlington proper, then our neighbors in
our other Vermont communities.

Local = Vermont.

The "spin" comes not from the Burlington Free Press or Molly Walsh, but from an ailing culture. You talk in terms of "equalized pupils" and growing enrollment that is anemic at best. Fiscally, what's going on in the state
of Vermont will not end happily.

You, and others whom are partaking in this fiscal cultural-suicide should be ashamed.

Regards,

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanne Collins" jcollins@bsdvt.org>
To:
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: 10% School budget increase

Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing the presentation- I will review it.

The paper's spin is not accurate. Our budget is up 9.9% but 6.5% is
covered by a revenue increase. Thus our request from taxpayers is 3.4%. We have 90 new equalized pupils, not 16 new students. 90 equalized pupils times the
base education grant covers most of the revenue increase and the ESL teachers are needed for much of this population. Unlike much of the state,
Burlington's enrollment is growing, and has been for three years, with many toddlers in the neighborhoods.

I don't disagree that the state as a whole needs to look at how it is
doing business in education. But in Burlington, we continue to be the lowest
spending district in the county, despite being the district with the highest needs in demographics. This budget reflects largely the desire to be competitive for our students, with foreign language and world cultures
being introduced earlier on. Education is changing.

Now I will go view the powerpoint. Thanks, Tom.

Jeanne Collins
Superintendent of Schools
Burlington School District
150 Colchester Ave.
Burlington, VT 05401
802-865-5332
FAX: 864-8501

"When parents and teachers collaborate on behalf of children,
they create windows of light for the generations that follow."

"Tom Licata" 03/03/08 6:00 AM

Jeanne,

I couldn't believe this morning's paper; a 10% increase?

We have a fiscal cancer in this state and you - as head of Burlington's schools -- are a
contributor of this.

Attached is a PowerPoint presentation I've been presenting around the state.
Speaker Symington attended our Jericho presentation. Please, take the time to review it.

We cannot continue on this path. In order to avoid a sever economic
disruption, meaningful change needs to occur. School districts will have to be consolidated and schools will need to be closed.

Look at the numbers. Look at the demographics. Look at the economics.

For God's sake, what are you people thinking over there?

Tom Licata

[Jon Harrison]

Like it or not, Licata is 100% right. Anybody who can't figure that out is obtuse. What good is an "earlier introduction to world cultures" if the fiscal house is going to fall in? Some of these public sector types are living in an absolute dream world.

Tom, "whom" is the objective case - it should be "who" in your first letter. I only mention this because it was used in correspondence -- I'm not trying to be pedantic, honest.

[Hunter Melville]

Our Elementary School budget meeting consisted of 25 people deciding whether to approve $3.5 million in spending. There were 6 board members, 12 teachers and school employees, 3 single parents and two couples. My wife and I represented nearly 30% of the unaffiliated vote. (Over a million bucks pro rata).

People didn't vote down our school budget cuz they didn't show up.

[Sharon Toborg]

It appears record numbers of voters turned out on Town Meeting Day, motivated by the Democratic Presidential Primary. And that must have had an impact on the passage of school budgets, as Democrats are generally predisposed to look favorably on increasing education spending. I don't think anyone should be surprised that few budgets went down to defeat this year.

[Curtis Hier]

"Well, Art, the problem with your argument is that the school districts with the lowest percentages of income-sensitized homesteads in many cases have the highest equalized pupil expenditures."

Well, there ya go again, George. Repeating all that Public Assets Institute nonsense. Where are the largest percentage increases, George? That's more to the point.