RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Springfield budget proposes 15 percent increase for schools



Toolbox

By Josh O'Gorman Herald Staff - Published: January 7, 2009

SPRINGFIELD — Homeowners would see the school portion of their tax rate rise nearly 15 percent with the proposed 2009-10 budget for Springfield School District.

District Financial Services Director Steve Hier presented a report to the School Board Monday night that illustrated how the budget as proposed by administration would raise the education portion of the residential tax rate 17.87 cents per $100 of assessed value, from $1.1963 to $1.375. The change is a 14.9-percent increase.

The taxes on a residence valued at $150,000 would increase from $1,794.45 to $2,062.50. A property owner with a home assessed at $200,000 would see his or her taxes rise more than $350 annually, from $2,392.60 to $2,750.

These figures are based upon the current base education tax rate of 87 cents and not the 85 cents recommended by Tax Commissioner Thomas Pelham on Dec. 29.

Much of the budget increase is due to debt service on the $32.8 million bond voters approved November 2006. That debt payment of $1,462,491 makes up most of the proposed budget increase.

The year's proposed budget of $25,866,667 is $2,383,663, or 10.2 percent, more than the current budget of $23,483,004. Without the debt payment, the budget is increasing 3.9 percent, or $921,663, from $23,483,004 to $24,404,667.

Because of Act 82, which caps the maximum amount a budget can increase and still be presented to voters in a single article, the budget as proposed will be presented to voters in three parts. The first article, $23,594,302, is the maximum the district can ask for in a single article. The majority of the second article, $1,611,008, is payment for the bond. The third article, $611,008, is payment to the River Valley Technical Center, which became its own district in 2007.

"What we would be voting on in the second article is what we've already agreed to," said Vice-Chairwoman Jeanice Garfield.

Board member Sam Coleman disagreed.

"I know the majority of voters agreed to pay off the bond, I don't think anybody anticipated the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," Coleman said.

Coleman said it is irresponsible to add new positions with the debt payment due. Of the $921,172 increase in the operating budget, more than one-third comes from new positions, such as two new world language teachers for the elementary and middle schools, each budgeted for $66,472.

Lisa Hall, one of three members of the budget advisory committee, said the board and administration should look to cut the budget further.

"We have to accept Act 82, and we should take this as an opportunity to discuss how we're going to reduce the budget," Hall said. "To be true to the spirit of that legislation we need to discuss how we can reduce spending."

There will be additional Board meetings to discuss the budget Thursday, Monday and Jan. 15. All meetings start at 6:30 p.m. and will be held in room B118 of the River Valley Technical Center.

Contact Josh O'Gorman at josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com.








READER COMMENTS


I seem to recall hearing that there was a $500,000 surplus left from last years scholl budget. Add that to the 15% increase plus the additional $500,000 that should have been subtracted from last years figure to arrive at the actual budget increase. Face it folks we've seen it over and over, the budget will be voted down, the board will then cut about $50,000 and put a new budget up for vote which will get voted down. The board will then re-vote the same figure explaining the public didn't understand what they were doing. By then only half the original voters will turn out and the budget will pass. Same old song, same old dance. vermoonts has one of the highest rates of educational spending per student in the country yet didn't make the top ten list of best state for education. Apparently there isn't a direct connection between how much you spend and how good the education is.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 5:00 pm EST

report this comment



A quick drive through any one of Springfield's four low income/subsidized housing projects might shed some light on the schools' challenges.
Never have so few paid the way for so many.
Special Ed costs are not negotiable, neither are the laws surrounding NCLB.
My sympathies to the board, superintendent, principals and tax payers. Your battle there is generational.
-- Posted by VT VT on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 12:16 pm EST

report this comment



I will surely vote no on this budget. That they would even discuss a budget increase for Springfield's drab and disabled school system is obscene.

This school district is one that has abandoned the good kids in order to spend massive amounts on special education. It's oriented toward the least common denominator. I suspect this attracts more and more needy children to a district that has no economic base to support these never ending cost increases.
-- Posted by mark on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 8:52 am EST

report this comment



Amen Jonathan!

Like you, I get to pay ever-increasing Springfield property tax bills even though the schools quite frankly stink. (I send my first grader to private school 25 minutes away as we did last year for kindergarten.) The town, despite glowing comments from town officers is on life-support. We have no jobs. There is darn little business to help foot the bill. We are a welfare town (in more ways than one!) Drive around town people... have a look!

Simply amazing how in the face of a national financial crisis where companies and even governments are cutting back wherever they can, Springfield school district piles it on. Year after year. One wonders how much of the Park Street/Union Street school boondoggle is hidden in this budget.

These administrators and the town officers need to hear the voters loud and clear. Enough is enough! We can't afford any more.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 1:00 pm EST

report this comment



Thank goodness the Springfield School Board and administrators don't work for the Red Cross..."I say there, might you be able to give us another pint my fine man?"
Springfield taxpayers are being bled dry. There's no more to give. Get real, get serious, and get down to the brass tacks of cutting the fat out of the budget! What a shame that the town allowed its illusions of grandeur to override its common sense with a $32M bond issue for repairing multiple neighborhood schools. What kind of modern, efficient, and comprehensive combined facility could have been built with that money? And as for a headline change to "Springfield boldly addresses school needs"...its a classic example of political sleight of hand designed to "sell a bill of goods" to the taxpayer and allow school board members and the superintendent to "Boldy avoid their responsibilities" to the taxpayers they serve! A 15 percent increase...what audacity!
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 12:57 pm EST

report this comment



Funny how the first guy says the richest 8% will see the rise in property tax. I am far from the richest 8% but I am above the poverty level and I get the increase every time. I am getting tired of paying higher and higher taxes in this town. My kids are not getting the education they should be considering the amount of taxes I am paying.

Maybe I should quit my job so Obama, Bernie, Leaky Leahy and the rest can take care of me.
-- Posted by Jonathan Graham on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 10:40 am EST

report this comment



The first paragraph betrays a bias towards the wealthiest among us. Only the 8% richest in Springfield "will see their tax rate rise nearly 15 percent."

This bias is undoubtedly unconcious. Reporting nominal tax rates has long been common practice in newspapers--even since 1997, when Act 60 made the old habit of reporting those tax rates obsolete. For typical people, the only financial consideration currently is the "equalized" per-pupil spending minus the educational inflation allowance (NEEP plus 1%) minus the common level of appraisal (CLA). Whoa. That's way too complicated. Most people prefer the simplicity of the almost-meaningless "tax rate" as witnessed by this article.

Most people can calculate the effect on their taxes with either the tax rate minus the CLA or the increase spending per equalized pupil. That's not too complicated. Unfortunately, this article fails to mention the CLA or the equalized-pupil spending. In other words, if you're a typical Springfield resident, this article tells you nothing.

The headline would be just as accurate as "Springfield residents struggling on a fixed income will see no property tax increase." How dull! Dog bites man! If your household makes less than $47,000 (and any large land holdings are agricultural and not speculative), then Vermont says you pay 5% of your income for property taxes. That is, if you're struggling on a fixed income, then your property taxes don't go up.

Additional, thoughtful educational spending affects mostly the people who prosper from their education. In Vermont, that statement is fairly accurate whether you look forward or backward. Both Democrats and Republicans claim that prosperity increases necessary tax revenues. Looking forward or backward, as a Republican or Democrat--what is the negative here?

In any case, Springfield is an exception that deserves consideration. It is a dramatically low-income community with historic challenges getting children thorugh high school (See completion rates at http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/data/dropout_completion.html). The No Child Left Behind grant program has shown that low-income communities need more educational resources but has never provided the resources. Nowadays, it should be no surprise that Springfield is expensive. That is, we have no evidence that the Springfield School Board is wrong; we only have evidence that Act 82 with the two-vote requirement may be wrong.

Springfield is also struggling with high school completion (see http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/data/dropout_completion.html). What should be more alarming: The near-meaningless tax rate or the down-to-earth diploma rate? Is there some reason that we should think that the members of the Springfield School Board are crackpots? This article represents the conclusion of duly-elected people in the form of a near-meaningless tax rate.

Instead of reporting the nominal tax rate, I suggest reporting the reaction of the town treasurer. Are people in Springfield complaining about their property tax bills? Based on my experience in Westminster, I'm guessing probably not. After all, it's less than sales tax. Remember, since 2007 the tax bills have shown the income-adjusted property tax. I'm on the school board in Westminster and the Bellows Falls Union High School Board. We've got our own problems, but we aren't helped by the problems of neighbors (despite what Act 82 says).

I don't know any of the Springfield board members. I'm glad I'm not them. I admire Springfield's historic commitment to eduation as witnessed by the preserved wooden Eureka schoolhouse.I admire their unified shool district. I hope my district will someday have the prekindergarten-12 perspective that Springfield has as a unified district.

The cost of school is startling by any standard at any grade level. We don't need people to tell us that school isn't worth it, because only only high school students will unquestionlingly welcome that message. It's an easy excuse to drop out

I wish the headline had been "Springfield boldly addresses school needs." The wealthiest 8% that actually paid the tax rate (see http://www.state.vt.us/tax/pdf.word.excel/statistics/2007/town_income_2007_detail_report.pdf) would more easily support the move while the poorest would not needlessly be frightened.
-- Posted by Dan Axtell on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 3:31 am EST

report this comment



Well at the very least we can hope this will create a few jobs, and not just pay for a better gym or a bigger lounge for the staff.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Jan 7, 2009, 3:19 pm EST

report this comment



AMEN
-- Posted by Harry Bird on Wed, Jan 7, 2009, 1:48 pm EST

report this comment



Never have so few paid so much for so little. But look on the bright side, when all the property in Springfield becomes worthless because no one wants to live there no one will have to pay property taxes.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Wed, Jan 7, 2009, 11:14 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout