Article Title: Let's Do Better on Budget

Edition: February 2002
Category: ViewPoint
Author: Glenn Gershaneck
Article:

On January 16, Eve Jacobs-Carnahan and I voted against the Montpelier School Board's proposed budget for 2002-2003. On a 5-2 vote, the proposal was approved to go before city voters on March 5.

The budget would spend $12,755,766, about $360,000 more than this year. A drop in enrollment cost $210,000 in state funds, so the budget requires close to $570,000 more in local spending.

No state law orders us to spend more. We can choose how best to protect school programs in hard times. It is every bit as difficult as the process we just went through, watching and helping school administrators shave expenditures to the bone. We strip-mined the budget. School staff and students will pay for it.

The budget process did not include in-depth review of the potential and consequences of specific program reductions. It did not include any type of contingency planning. How would we cut $400,000? What about $300,000? $200,000? $100,000? Different scenarios for different budget balancing were rejected as too complicated and unnecessary.

There also was concern that identifying cuts might insure they would be made. Well, maybe.

The state projects an enrollment drop of 38 "equalized" students for 2002-03. The district forecasts a decline of more than 50. Board and administration did not calculate the effect of the lower number of students on staff needs. Enrollment is down 150 students since 1994. The trend will continue. That should provoke at least a cursory staff review.

A key element of education financing is per-pupil spending. If enrollment drops and spending increases, as this year's plan proposes, per-pupil spending rises. The difference between the state per-pupil grant and the district's equalized spending per pupil determines how much additional money district residents are taxed.

The state property tax is $1.10 per $100 of assessed property value. The Legislature will set the per-pupil grant this spring, $5,448 recommended by the governor or $5,566, the state Education Board's figure. Last year's spending was 77 cents above grant, so the Montpelier school rate was $1.87.

The Education Department figure would push up our rate at least 19 cents, to $2.06. The lower figure would make it $2.09. Either could be higher, depending on the gap between district and state per-pupil spending. It will not be lower under this proposal.

In addition, a reduction in "sensitivity" controlling tax payments for households below certain income levels is quite likely. The governor proposed it, and the difficulty confronting supporters of the higher student grant is the shortage of tax revenue to pay for it. Fewer rebates or tax caps frees money for higher grants.

Montpelier is in the top 18 percent of school districts for per-pupil spending. The 45 districts that spend more educate 600 or fewer students. Montpelier has 1,100. We're in a different category. A better comparison is municipalities with 900 to 1,300 students. We spent the most per pupil this year: $10,975. Rockingham was next at $10,841. Reducing spending to that level would save $147,000 ($134 times 1,100 students).

Another comparison is single-municipality districts:
Colchester: $8,011
Burlington: $8,128
Milton: $8,334
Rutland: $8,738
South Burlington: $8,794
Winooski: $8,914
Norwich: $10,407
Springfield: $10,497
Hartford: $10,799
Montpelier: $10,975

Board members rationalized spending by saying that two-thirds of our residents qualified for the "sensitivity" tax cap. With a lower income ceiling, the proportion not covered by it will become more numerous and pay considerably more.

We pared allocations for school libraries, textbooks, professional development, travel, and looked (briefly) at eliminating two sports activities. We had no overall objective beyond a shared desire to do the least damage possible to the system. We must do better.

You have reached the end of the article.

Select the following link to see all the listings in the ViewPoint category: ViewPoint
Select the following link to see all the listings in the February 2002 edition: February 2002
Select the following link to go back to the index page: Index
Select the following link to go back to the introduction page: Introduction