 |
 |
Dr. David Hopson |
||||||||||||
January 10, 2007 I join our town administrators and school committee members in their frustration with a state-mandated budget process that makes very little sense for regional school districts. This frustration comes from having to guess how much state aid (Chapter 70 and Regional Transportation) will be available to the district, while developing a budget that our citizens will probably vote on before the state has even settled their own budget. This same guessing game applies to the towns over unknown “cherry sheet aid” (lottery aid, payments in lieu of taxes for state owned land, etc.). It is also frustrating to know that the law says the state will pay 100% of these costs, but because such funds are subject to appropriation, the schools and towns rarely see the entire amount that was intended in the original law. This process is even more difficult this year because the normal January 30th deadline for the House 1 budget (the Governor’s budget) is extended for a month due to the election of a new governor. While many people applauded the promises made by various candidates during the campaign, the ‘sudden’ fiscal reality of the state being $1 billion in structural deficit doesn’t bode well for additional state revenue being returned to towns and school districts. For this reason, I am recommending to the school committee that we expect no additional state aid for the district and build our budget accordingly. This essentially means that every dollar increase in the district budget will be passed directly on to each of us as taxpayers. While I recognize the political reality that representatives from Western Massachusetts can’t call the shots in a House and Senate with an overwhelming majority of Boston area legislators, I’m still rather amazed by some seeming inequities in state aid. As just one example: consider the amount of state owned property in just Chester and Blandford—property that is a great buffer to development and a wonderful unspoiled piece of Western Massachusetts, and the amount of money that the state provides from the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program—a total payment to both towns this fiscal year of $23,343 This is hardly a windfall for the towns given the underlying value of the property and what a ‘normal’ taxpayer would be required to pay for the same property. Like regional transportation reimbursement, the PILOT program is rarely funded at an adequate level to fulfill the promise of the enacting legislation. In another flight of fantasy, I wonder how much more attention would be given to adequately supporting schools if students could vote in elections. Students are directly impacted by budgets that limit their educational options (although it could be argued that we all are impacted by a less than adequate education, as these current students will be supporting all of us in one way or another as we age). In the end, our school committee and administration will take our best guess at what monies we’ll ultimately get from the state, ensure that essential services are protected, and try to develop a realistic budget that addresses the most pressing needs within the district. As in prior years, this budget will likely be seen as too high by the towns, too low by the staff and accrediting organizations, and create a difficult decision for each community member at their annual town meeting. ### |
||||||||||||