Dr. David Hopson
12 Littleville Rd
Huntington, MA 01050

Please visit the district website.

May 3, 2010

I was disappointed to read the finance committee letter to Russell citizens and see that the issues that were discussed at length during a previous meeting with the selectboard and finance committee did not appear to be reflected in the findings.  I am specifically speaking to the following three areas of concern.

1. There is no recognition that the school committee has struggled to keep the budget at a reasonable level for years while maintaining student services. If we had kept 5 elementary schools open, the budget for next year would have required at least a 2% increase over the current budget (and nearly 5% higher than the budget being requested) and would have resulted in a minimum increase of $500,000 in town assessments (an average increase in assessments of 5.64% rather than the 0.96% in the current budget request). Thus I would argue that the district did reflect the anticipated savings discussed over the past several months.

2. The transportation reimbursement figures that were used in the Russell Finance Committee letter do not reflect the reality that there are more districts with higher costs applying to the state for reimbursement; that the DOR numbers are based upon the FY2009 report from the district rather than the drastically reduced cost of transportation due to savings brought about by consolidating bus runs and increasing the number of students walking (which of course decreases the reimbursement amount) for FY2010; and the fact that the actual transportation reimbursement will be based upon state reports due in September 2010. Much of this information is contained in the DOR backup for their posted figures.

3. The figures the town of Russell used for maintaining their school once it reverts to town ownership seem to allow for full use of the building for town purposes, as the $75,000 you estimate exceeds the 7 year average the district has spent for oil, electricity, water, sewer, insurance and custodial costs for running the building year round with full use. I believe that the original figures each town used for maintaining their schools is very liberal, especially given the amount of fuel oil left in each building and the question of full use of these buildings without a corresponding increase in revenue from such uses.

I hope that everyone supports the idea of a sound and effective education for all children. The School Committee chose to consolidate schools for a more effective and better education for our children, not simply to save money for the towns. They’ve eliminated multi-age classrooms, provided for increased student support, given each elementary school its own principal and provided for increased staff collaboration in support of student success. If we had simply applied all savings from consolidation into reducing town assessments, reduced services further to accommodate the projected decrease in state aid (potentially $250,000), had overestimated the transportation reimbursement as the letter suggested we do, then the district could potentially be cutting up to $750,000 from the proposed budget. This level of reductions would eliminate many services to children, damage our ability to effectively educate our children, fail to provide the opportunity to improve student performance and ultimately lead to a non-functional school district. We all understand that the district, while technically able to, is not realistically able to come back to the towns for increased funding upon the loss of state aid (i.e., build a budget on the revenue figures the state uses and then, when they’re reduced, go back to the towns for additional school assessment increases).

It also appears that the only budgeted item in most towns that has vastly exceeded the nominal 2.5% increase allowed under Prop 2½ is the vocational budget. It would seem that this is one item that may necessitate the use of a Prop 2 ½ override if towns can’t meet their obligations with the current revenue base. I also see that some towns have elected to use free cash to buy down the tax rate for years and, by doing so, have not maximized their revenue capacity allowed by Proposition 2½ over the years, thus potentially making a 2 ½ override necessary. Further, most towns’ free cash has not been significantly altered by the use of tax rate buy downs, leading to many towns having free cash and reserves that are, as a percentage of a town’s budget, several times higher than the district’s equivalent reserves.

As mentioned in your letter, it is the decision of the towns regarding the spending allocations, tax revenue and resulting services (or reduction in services) that is the final arbitrator of town budgets. I hope that town residents in Russell and throughout the district will see the need to continue services for our children and carefully review the impact that a potential $750,000 reduction would have on the quality of our district.

###