The Belmont School Committee met Tuesday evening to discuss budget options for FY 2010 and possible cuts to school programs in the event that the town does not pass an operational override to patch a structural deficit in the town’s budget and make up for lost local aid from the state.
First the good news: The town has finally completed federally mandated safety changes to the drain at the High School’s Higginbottom pool, which is open again for public use.
In other good news, generous parents have donated $10,000 to the Wellington School for use towards the purchase of technology.
Now for everything else:
School Committee kicked off Tuesday’s meeting with a discussion of the decision by Butler Elementary principal Bruce McDonald to leave his position. The School Committee will be meeting with the faculty and parents to gauge their response and start talking about a replacement.
Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of possible cuts to school programs for FY 2010. For parents interested in voicing concerns about the budget, there will be a public forum to discuss the school budget on February 4th in the Chenery Auditorium. Residents and, especially, Town Meeting members are especially invited to attend.
The School Committee made clear that, on the town’s current fiscal course, deep cuts to school programs will be inevitable in FY 2010. Some of the worst case scenarios include:
- Elimination of elective courses at the High School level (creative writing and public speaking were mentioned)
- Elimination of AP courses (such as Latin) at the High School
- The elimination of JV sports
- The elimination of elementary science education
- Steep cuts across the board in spending for supplies and book purchases
- Curtailing or loss of laboratory science courses
- Steep increase in use fees for all sports
Various remedies and cost cutting ideas were discussed. These include increased use of fees to support some functions. The idea of “virtual high school” with online learning programs was floated, but the upfront costs of providing such an option ($10,000 for a 25 person online course) were not felt to be cost effective for the town in the current environment.
School Committee member Ann Rittenburg inquired about the possibility of increasing the teaching load for Directors from one class to two.
Interim Superintendent Pat Aubin said that “everything is on the table,” and that the School Dept. is considering that measure to lessen the impacts of layoffs. However, doing so would eat in to other responsibilities they have, especially those that aren’t mandated by law, such as curriculum and instruction supervision. “This will hurt at the elementary level because the directors may be able to get to the Middle School but wouldn’t have the time to influence the elementary school,” she said.
At the High School level, the goal with any cuts is to protect graduation required courses, cutting everything else that isn’t necessary. That may mean no elective courses for students and the elimination of campus monitors, resulting in a so-called “open campus” in which students who don’t have courses can come and go at will.
“We need to make sure the public is educated on how drastic these cuts are and the impact it will have on our children,” said School Committee member Leslie Walker. “How can we make sure the public can find out?”
“The public shouldn’t be under the illusion that their kids will be prepared for the future because there will be drastic cuts in quality without additional resources,” said Rittenburg.
Here are some breakdowns by subject area:
English/Language Arts:
- A total of 7 sections lost, translating into increased class sizes at the High School and cuts to staff at the Middle School that result in teaching loads of 110 students per teacher, from the current 90.
- A reduction of 1.25 positions at the Middle School, which will likely result in the loss of an English teacher
- A reduction of 1.4 positions at the High School that will translate into the termination of elective courses in creative writing and public speaking.
- Non salary cuts of 20%, which will translate into steep cuts in budget for supplies.
Foreign Language Study
- French and Spanish classes will be larger with a .6 employee cut at Middle School.
- A high School employee will be cut by 1 FTE (full time equivalent) and class sizes are already challenging.
- BHS already lacks enough teachers to run AP French. Further cuts would reduce teaching supplies by 20%. The budget for books would be zeroed out. The AP Latin course will be canceled and replaced with a 4th year course.
A note: students who would have taken AP French this year already have to take classes elsewhere (at Harvard Extension School and online) at their own expense. It was noted that some colleges require 4 years of a language– a requirement that Belmont Public Schools would not enable students to meet for some languages should these cuts go through. It’s also unclear what the status of elementary school language programs
Mathematics
The elimination of 2.5 FTEs at the Middle School means the loss of an MCAS support program for 5 – 7th grade students (100 of them)based on their MCAS performance.In the mathematics arena, under the recommended budget we will lose one staff member. The Everyday Math Program, which uses a journal that runs over 6K for each grade level, would be replaced with a text book that can be used for several years. The budget crisis might be used to adopt a new math curriculum such as a “fast math” software based program that does individualized instruction and skill building? (Is it really the time to drop $13k on skill building software?!?!)
For Science & Technology Education
Removing one FTE that would affect AP Chemistry and 2nd level physics which are two courses that round out the program. Low enrollment electives would also be cut.
Suggestions were made to “prevent students from taking additional science classes,” and to “stop teaching science at the elementary schools.” That “the teachers aren’t trained in science and they already have to teach literacy in growing class sizes.” Another option is to increase class sizes and shifting from lab to lecture format — a move that would be sure to make it harder to attract qualified science teachers.
Social Studies
Social Studies textbooks date back to 1995. The town is interested in getting a school-wide software program that has applications in all the different subjects. With the current budget, the school would lose 3.25 FTE, including a 5th grade SS teacher at the Chenery resulting in larger class sizes, less engaging lessons and ess time for customized home communication. 1 FTE would be lost at the High School which will impact the SS electives. Kids that want non-history such as psychology, economics (AP), Modern problems in global politics, and Human Service Program would be cut, meaning that the graduation requirement of 40 hours of service per student would also need to change.
Physical Education
Jim Davis said that salary step increases mean that non-salary cuts would be steep: all JV sports will be cut (a move that will require another FTE to come on board at the school since the afterschool sports programs count for the phys ed requirements, and no JV will result in increased phys ed enrollment.) Increased fees would put sports out of reach for anyone whose family couldn’t afford to pay. The elimination of JV programs mean only the best athletes will have the opportunity to play for the town.
“It’s counterintuitive on so many levels to pull out all these programs,” said Rittenburg. “But we don’t have the public funds to support it when we can’t afford to possibly lose it. What are we going to do?”
“Residents and, especially, Town Meeting members are especially invited to attend.”
We, especially, can not afford any cuts in especially english and especially grammar.
wayne grow
In regard to the override issue, I am disappointed that some of the town leaders on the warrant committee, and one selectman, are actively suggesting that we not even put the issue to a vote. They are there to serve ALL of the community members- and they are doing a huge disservice to many by not even allowing us to vote our choice. I believe they should ask for about half of what is needed- 2.5 million, and split that between the schools and town. This would show the people that some cuts will be made, but we would not be destroying the services entirely.
hey kim. i wholeheartedly agree. there seems to be this idea that the job of the selectmen is to handicap overrides and other important matters, then back the ones that they think have the odds to pass, or to play town psychologist and try to plumb the intentions and mood of voters, then give them something that won't upset people too much. their job is to make a sober consideration of what the town needs to maintain its services, quality of life and, of course, its good standing, and to push for what's necessary. that said, i think its clear that the Selectmen do think an override vote is necessary, and i think its unlikely that it won't be put before the town voters, given the magnitude of the budget shortfall.
I wanted to mention two points that I think are relevant to the override discussion. I have kids in the schools, and want the schools to be the best they can be, but I think that we need to remember two things.
The first is that only 20% of the households in town have kids in the schools, and while most everyone in town might like us to have good schools, only those 20% have a really very strong interest (plus the small percentage who have kids who have not yet entered the schools). When times are tough and budgets are tight, it's hard for a great majority in town to want to support the schools if it's going to cost a lot of money. I think that is why the selectmen and members of the warrant committee are hesitant to recommend an override or why they might be negative about its chances of success.
The other thing is that pretty much every year, news about the school budget is bad at first, people get up in arms, go to meetings and talk about why we shouldn't cut things, and then, magically, money is found to fill most of the gaps. People have told me this year things are different – all the “secret pots” of money are used up, but I think that for the average person in town, it seems like the schools cry wolf every year and then end up ok, so why should this year be any different? Plenty of parents of kids in the school system have told me this is why they don't bother going to the meetings or keeping up with the budget crisis from week to week – they feel that it will all be ok in the end. By “finding” money in past years to fill the holes in the budget, I think that undermines the credibility of the whole system – why should people vote to raise their taxes when officials will be able to scrape things together like they always do? If this year is really different, then I think the schools ought to get some articles in the paper explaining why money was able to be found in the past and why it won't be found this year. I suspect a lot of people still won't believe it, but without some information on it there are a lot of people who will think that everything will be ok as it has been in the past.
Hey. I think, at a high level, you are correct. I'd really take issue with the casual observation that “it will all be OK in the end.” Talk to people who have lived in this town for a while and sent kids through the school, or who have kids late in BHS and they'll tell you, flat out, that the quality of education offered by the town's public schools has declined. I've had a longtime elementary -level educator in the system tell me that she wouldn't recommend the town to her own kids — that other towns offer more programs for students and more support for their educators, whether its remedial and advanced students, language emersion at the elementary level, or AP and extracurricular options at the high school level. If you think that nothing ever changes, let me note that we used to have LIBRARIANS in our school libraries to help students learn how to research a topic and to foster a love of reading. We no longer do and, in fact, we're going to have to fight to keep them from locking the libraries for lack of staff to keep them operational.
It's always hard to look around and see what's missing, or to see the impact on cuts now in the lives of our children 5 or 10 years from now. But please don't kid yourself that you can cut without “cutting” so to speak. Our kids are certainly missing out already– learning less, whether its knowing less of a foreign language than peers in other towns, less about how to use a library and find a book they're interested in, or less about science and technology for lack of instruction at the lower grades. The cuts have been happening right along now, even in years where there isn't a budget “crisis” (though those are rare, in my experience.) It's just hard to see them unless you crawl over the books and compare it to what the town offered 5, 10 or 20 years ago, but they're there.
Nice accurate summary of the SC meeting. Considering the scenario it seems like the School Admins have done a fair job at distributing the pain although fee increases are not cuts and are bad policy. A little surprised they haven't played hardball with the State yet but maybe with a failed override they will. I would add that the $5m shortfall is expected to grow in FY10 as Governor Patrick cuts deeper into local aid meaning the SC with or without an override has to reduce the 7.5% annual budget growth because its unsustainable.
I think they will eventually settle on an override or override(s) to go to the voters but it could prove to be a huge mistake. You need to look at the consequences of a YES and NO vote. Too many here ignore the potential negative consequences of a YES vote. It appears Mr. Firenze is aware of this and being cautious before committing.
If only Q1 had passed…. If only Q1 had passed… right Paul
I totally agree with you – I think the schools have definitely suffered – I am very aware of all the things that have been cut. I was just summarizing what I have heard from a lot of people out there – I know that when you look at the details you see a lot of what disappears every year, but most people don't look at the details, and they only hear that money was found and things are basically ok. I went through this school system in the 80s, and am back here partly because I grew up here and my parents still live here, so the benefits of having close grandparents outweigh the fact that I think we could be in a better school system elsewhere, but if I had no ties to Belmont, I don't think I'd end up here because of the schools.
yeah. i hear you. belmont has so much going for it — including a very committed teaching staff, school administration and parents/families, but the school system can only do with what its given by the town. this spring it will be an opportunity for the town to step up and say, definitively, that “excellence in our schools are important to belmont, and we're willing to reach into our pocket to make it happen.” there's just no way around it. frankly, the bad economy is the excuse du jour by some for not pushing an operational override. but we needed one last year, and what was the excuse then? the roads. we needed one in 2007, and what was the excuse then? the fire stations, maybe? and we needed on in 2006 and 2005, if I'm not mistaken. there's always going to be an excuse at hand to say “no.” we need our town's leaders to LEAD. to make the case for sacrifice, even in hard times, because its for the good of the town this year and 10 years from now. my 2c.
hey PJ — you're right that we may be chasing a moving target with further local aid cuts, but i think that makes a stronger case for an override, not a weaker one. as to fees…so should the schools eliminate JV and Varsity sports and extracurriculars, then, or institute fee increases? you only get one chance to go to High School — its tough medicine to say 'sorry, we can't afford to field any teams, kid! good luck with your life!”
And not sure about the “playing hardball with the state” comment. Who's “they”? Belmont? The Board of Selectmen? If so, I wouldn't bank that the state will eagerly come to the aid of an “affluent” town like Belmont just because its voters rejected a prop 2 1/2 override. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the good people in places like Lowell, or Lawrence or Boston — devastated by foreclosures — will feel much sympathy for residents in Belmont.
Just a quick note here:
“If you think that nothing ever changes, let me note that we used to have LIBRARIANS in our school libraries to help students learn how to research a topic and to foster a love of reading.”
According to SC members, Belmont DOES have librarians in the school system. The high school and the middle school have ACTUAL librarians and library aides. The elementary schools only have library aides.
After I heard Karen claim at a recent SC meeting that there were no librarians in the school system, I asked about it and it's just not true. I don't know why neither the SC members nor administrators corrected her right then and there, but they should have. It might be interesting to find out how useful a librarian vs. library aide is for “project research” to a child who is 6, 7 or 8. I don't know. I'll find out in a few years when my kids are that age. But to say there are NO librarians in the school system is just plain flat out wrong.
As an aside, Belmont should feel a little lucky in this regard. Towns like Winchester, a town Belmont likes to compare itself to, and vice versa, eliminated elementary school library aides in 2004. Parent volunteers run the elementary school libraries there and continue to do so to this day even though the town approved of an operating override in 2006. The school department there also eliminated the elementary school music program in 2004. That is privately funded via donations. When I was covering Winchester, it didn't offer Chinese to its middle school students. Belmont does.
I’m not advocating cuts in these programs; I’m trying to make a larger point. While these may seem like semantics, they are just a few examples that prove you can't make blanket statements that “This town has it better than our town …” Each town is different. Officials can wave around per pupil expenditure charts all they want, but it isn't a fair comparison because no school system is alike. While they are very similar, they aren't all the same, as the said examples above prove. As well, everyone knows why Watertown and Cambridge have higher per pupil spending. Take out all the money on special ed and other extras they have to have because of the makeup of their population and watch those per pupil numbers go down, down down … I would bet, probably pretty close to what Belmont spends per pupil.
We all know the headlines from places like Stoneham and Bridgewater when overrides have failed and the football team was cut to zero and they had to raise money privately to retain the programs. This year, despite a five-year plan, Arlington is also looking at school cuts. Lexington is looking at $2M in school cuts too. All this before the governor's $128 million local aid cut proposal just announced about 15 minutes ago.
My point is that every town is going through the same thing. Belmont is not alone and you shouldn't think that you are. And any official, who twists things around to make you think that somehow, Belmont is suffering more than anyone else in the state, region, nation, or world, is just not being fair or accurate.
The answers aren’t easy but I do wish you all the best in figuring them out.
Just to throw another subject into the mix, what about the 24,000 tuition for every student at Minute Man? My understanding is that this is a contract that can never be broken unless all 16 school districts agree. I appreciate the need for alternative education choices in normal times, but these are quickly becoming not normal times. Just wondering what others thoughts are. 800,000 would cover a lot of our shortfall.
At the Burbank there is only a part-time library aide. She only works with the K and Gr. 1 classes. The rest of the grades have no library support. This often results in the kids watching videos during library time while the teacher uses the time for planning/grading.
Kim… so you figured out what hardball means. Essentially it means the School Committee needs to go after Minuteman and METCO funding issues. Very few will argue the value of a Minuteman education or the proven success of the METCO graduation rate. Plenty will argue the $24k tuition for Minuteman and the $5k reimbursement for METCO. Can Belmont continue to afford to subsidize the education of these 130 or so Minuteman and METCO students while they let the other 3,800 students see class sizes rise and services diminish?
We need to play hard and get the Minuteman contract reworked even if it means lawsuits and we need to get METCO funded at or near per pupil expenditures in Belmont. Our local legislators can't do it because they have no power. It has to be the School Committee and the Town needs to get behind the effort and round up other Towns in a similar situation and then act on it by serving notice. Will it take a failed override to play political hardball? Will it result in “found money” for the schools? Don't know but I haven't seen any other viable solutions offered to raise revenue. As for a contract that can never be broken… please this Town is full of lawyers who excel at breaking contracts and when the Super of Minuteman basically tells you the school is not good at containing costs sirens go off. These are 2 areas where the possibility exists of saving serious $$. It doesn't solve the full deficit and future deficits but it is a place where new revenue may be found and I would risk $100k in legal fees to try it.
Tony – my kids are at Winn Brook. There are no librarians. The same is true at the other elementary schools in town. libraries…no librarians. it's also true that the town has toyed with cutting the library aide positions in the past — including last year — but avoided it at the last minute, so you can dance around “we really do have librarians” but not the bare fact that, at least at the elementary level, there's a real question about whether the libraries will be locked in the 2009/2010 school year. So I wonder if you're missing the forest for the trees, my friend.
Winchester — it's your favorite straw man town. From what I've heard, it's an affluent but penurious little 'burb that chronically under funds its schools, library and other services at the expense of families and children in town. I'd hate to see Belmont going that way and I'm not sure why Winchester is your “city on the hill,” exactly. And, as for your basic “hey, it's worse in town _x_” argument. You've argued in these pages before that you can't compare Belmont to other towns – that its circumstances make it unique, but now feel like comparisons are apt. I'm confused. There's always going to be someplace that will be doing less than we are in Belmont. I'm not sure we should pat ourselves on the back for that. In Bangladesh the schools don't have running water, electricity, desks or books. Just think how much we could trim from the School Dept. budget if we decided to get rid of those things!
Finally, I'm concerned by the slant in your opinion. You seem quite sold on the idea of pulling public support of educational programs and making them fee based. I know you like to think of Belmont as a rich town full of Mitt Romneys, but it just isn't. There's a substantial population of non-homeowner/renters in town, its economically very diverse and this privatization of public education simply puts after school sports, music and other essential programs out of reach of kids whose family lacks the resources to pay for them. Maybe that stuff flies in New Hampshire, where you live, but it's not the standard that we've traditionally set in The Commonwealth, and I'm not sure its a direction that any of us would like to see our community continue in. We've already privatized our public schools enough, what with sports and transportation fees. Enough is enough!
Thanks for the clarification on the library aide issue — as with other details, it's good to note that just having the position filled doesn't mean these people are full time or that they're servicing all kids within a school equally or in the way we might assume! Hopefully Tony and the BCH will take note.
I have been told that we are looking further into the Minuteman contract, and I totally agree that no contract in “unbreakable”. Along with Minuteman and Metco (which are truly great programs, but like I said before- money is a huge issue right now) the growing cost of special ed, also important, is beyond our control and cutting deeply into the funds available to the rest of the children. In the foreseeable future, it is going to get much worse very quickly.
PJ- did you go to the Belmont schools?
I asked a High School student how many kids are in her classes on average right now- she said 30- what will happen if we remove a teacher from every department at the High School? I guess I could go on and on, but the Minute Man issue seems outrageous- someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Hi Paul,
First, my main point was about the comment that there are no librarians in the school system. Your readers deserved to know the truth, from John Bowe's own mouth: There are librarians in the school system, at BHS and Chenery, and library aides at the elementary schools. If one of the elementary schools doesn't have a library aide, maybe someone should report that because they do exist. You can dance around because you and Karen got caught in very silly exaggeration, but it's just not true.
I don't think education should be fee-based but I also don't think taxpayers and renters should be hammered by educators and elected officials who can't live with what they have and make fiscally irresponsible decisions with the money they do get.
Everyone has to make choices about what they think is important and act accordingly. When I went to school, there were 36 kids in my algebra class and just as many kids in many other AP classes. Today, however, school systems believe that class sizes should be much, much smaller than before. That's fine. But, if you cut the class sizes in half from what they were 20-plus years ago, and hire twice as many teachers as before, as well as teacher aides, cirric directors, and everything else we didn't have 20-plus years ago, officials have no other choice but to charge fees for the bus ride or the sports program or the drama scripts, or whatever. You simply have to live without other things you used to have to make up the cost. You can't expect taxpayers, many of whom don't have children in the public schools and can't afford higher taxes, to pay six or seven times what they used to pay. That is the tyranny of the minority on the majority. Other things have to give because there just isn't this magic pot of money somewhere, especially when the state and federal govt. shirk its responsibilities.
As far as the town comparison goes, yeah, each town is different and the comparison can't really be made. And yet, every year, for at least the last nine years, the annual per pupil chart gets held up to show that Belmont is somehow not up to snuff. Belmont's per pupil expenditures are less and yet, BHS is in the USN&WR Top 100 every year. It's less, and yet everyone can't wait to move here to be in the Belmont school system. It's less, and yet Belmont has more staff in some departments than “affluent” Winchester, as I just stated, etc.
Belmont can't afford to pay for all the things they get in Watertown, Lexington, Arlington, or other towns, because Belmont doesn't have the commercial base and Belmont gets screwed by an archaic rip-off of a local aid formula which assumes that everyone in town is rich and they aren't rich.
I DON'T think Belmont is “a rich town full of Mitt Romneys …” I've never said that and I've never editorialized such nonsense. Clearly, you haven't been reading the newspaper that closely. For nearly two years, I've argued for frugality and restraint, to protect the majority of property taxpayers and renters who can't pay millions and millions more in taxes or higher rents.
My friend, be honest … You're actually arguing from a point that Belmont is full of rich Mitt Romneys. Last year, you wanted the average homeowner, some who didn't have it and couldn't afford it, to cough up $600 more annually that they didn't need to. You're now arguing that they should pay $750 or more this year, in the middle of a global economic crisis, and another $900 for a new elementary school, which, admittedly, is badly needed.
Everyone knows the town needs more money. Is it going to get it? Don't know. Tell you want, you force elected officials to put up a $5M override and see how it goes. I'll bet you anything it goes down worse than the roads override. If you're smart, and I know you are, you'll figure out a way to be sensible so that you can preserve the important stuff instead of flailing around thinking you're going to everything and more. It's just not going to happen and it isn't going to happen anywhere.
In closing, New Hampshire isn't that bad. You can cheap shot it all you want but it's pretty good here. My son's first grade class will be smaller than every elementary school in Belmont. He will get all the same things Belmont kids although, no, I don't think we have librarians in the elementary schools … Somehow, our city will manage to educate twice as many students with about $60M … and we can get that done because we don't have drama teachers making $83K, directors making $90K to $115K, or Supers making $180K.
i'm making an argument that these cuts would degrade the quality of education in our town and that, as a town, we have a commitment to preserve the high quality of public education. 'Nuff said, right?
Say what you want, but the quality of the public schools is one of the main factors (though not the only one) attracting young families to town and keeping property values high – sparing Belmont the foreclosure crisis that's hurting other towns so badly. You might believe that its possible to “cut without cutting,” but its not. it's also not clear that the programs lost in cuts — such as the elementary music education program, which is one of the most respected in the state — will ever return once they're eliminated. it's possible, of course, but i don't think it's common. maybe the bch could look into what happens after cuts are made – whether the town has a record of restoring services that are trimmed or eliminated in an emergency. it's an interesting question.
No offense to your home state intended. I think that NH and MA both have their strong points and their weaknesses. my point is that they're very different states with different values – one next to the other. Sounds like you're doing great with your kids' education up there. I'm guessing that if these cuts were being proposed for your town — that if you had some skin in this game — if your kid was looking at steep increases in class size, sharp cuts in money for teachers to buy basic school supplies and loss of JV sports, elementary science education and the like, maybe you'd see things in a different light and be sympathetic to the parents in town. I'm a father of two BPS students. I'm looking at my kids sitting in larger classes, having fewer opportunities to learn subjects like science, art and music and paying higher fees to boot. As I said, my daughter only gets one shot at third grade. it's not the direction I think this town wants to go in. And, as I said, these aren't the first cuts. There have been years of cuts — a snip here, a snip there. I feel, strongly, that the town is at a crossroads, Tony.
Finally, I absolutely appreciate that any increase in taxes hits residents hard. in fact, i don't think its fair to expect a town as small as Belmont — or any town, for that matter, to bear such a heavy burden of paying for its infrastructure: schools, fire, police, roads all with so little help from the federal govt. and the state. we should be getting much more federal and state support help to build schools, libraries and repair roads and public buildings. i think there are opportunities for both the state and fed govt to increase their support. hopefully, with the new administration, we'll see that. But we can't bank on it and this is the world we live in. Recall, Belmont has been living beyond its means for years: spending more than its bringing in. the BOS and WC have raided every source of free cash to allow that fiction to continue. You can argue the pros and cons of that strategy, and there's always been a justification for it (as there is -again -this year) but one thing is clear: the town has put off till tomorrow what they could have done today, as the saying goes, and now it's tomorrow. What's so sad is that, now that we're out of options, rather than showing leadership by rallying the town to do what's necessary to preserve basic services and quality of life, some elected officials are using the economic crisis to turn sentiments against the town and school employees who have served this town faithfully for years — stirring up voter resentment over ill defined (actually undedfined) “waste.” Angelo says he wants to see the town living within its means before he'll consider an override. But what, exactly, is he proposing as a measure of that? What benchmarks? Standards? Goals to be achieved? You're hot and bothered because you feel like these professionals are making too much money…The implication, I'm sorry to say, is that their jobs — drama teacher, curriculum directors, schools superintendent — aren't worthy of, what in Massachusetts, are still middle class wages. Let me ask you: what _should_ these people get paid? Would it make you happy to put the numbers into the TonyTron and come up with an appropriate salary for an educator or school administrator? One, we can presume, that's low and humble enough so they'll “know their place”? And all this in a climate where we're reading about 26 and 27 year olds working for Lehman and Bear Stearns making their “buck” ($1,000,000 a year ) just for moving money around, doing credit default swaps and other bogus investments. Get real. These people educate our children. They create the next generation of doctors, lawyers, journalists and scientists. They're highly educated, they work hard and they deserve the middle class wages they make. I'd like to see that editorialized in the BCH and I think a lot of my readers would also.
Six or seven times higher taxes?
Please show your work, and do it in inflation-adjusted dollars, please.
Note that the Belmont School Committee has ZERO control over Minuteman. Same goes for the school committees of the member towns. Minuteman is its own regional school district with its own school committee. Belmont has one seat (I think appointed by the Selectmen). http://minuteman.org/sch_comm/ . It's rare that we hear anything from our MM rep.
When towns' School Committees bring up the issue, the response from many is “you are just envious”. The message has to come from Town-wide voices and from more than just Belmont. PJ – how about you leading this?
Just to annoy you/us all more, non-member towns can send their kids to Minuteman – and they pay quite a bit less per student than member towns are forced to pay! Membership does not have its privileges.
In fact, in the last 29 years, property taxes town-wide have only increased about 16% over inflation. Tony's numbers look very inaccurate. And here, I'll show my work:
You can find a (scanned, not selectable) PDF of Belmont property tax revenues going back to 1978 here:
http://www.town.belmont.ma.us/Public_Documents/…
And you can find the consumer price index estimated back to 1800 (though we only need 1978 to 2007) here:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_educati…
From this, you can see FY07 property taxes of $57.5 million, and FY78 property taxes of $15.5 million. That looks like a factor of 3.7 — alarming, but barely half of Tony's claim, and not in inflation-adjusted dollars. Inflation from 78 to 07 was 620.7/195.4, or a factor of 3.18. In constant dollars, the taxes have only grown up by a factor of 3.7/3.18 = 1.165; that is, 16%, over a period of 29 years.
There's other adjustments to consider — increases to the tax base (new construction, e.g. McLean) would add to tax revenues without increasing the rate (lowering the per-property increase), but (on the other hand) we are getting fewer services. It is not surprising to see wages growing faster than inflation; that should happen in a growing economy, though it doesn't every year. However, none of these adjustments are sufficient to turn a factor of 1.165 into a factor of 6 or 7.
Kim,
Yes. I believe my 4th grade class at Wellington in the 70's had 23 or 24 kids which is about the same as today. There are more offerings today in the Language and Athletic programs (partly Title IX) and AP level courses. There are also 2 fewer elementary schools. Class aides were rare but Special Ed has changed the requirements so it's hard to compare. They also have some community service program which I don't see the value of unless it fulfills credits and saves cost. The Wellington was in working condition when I went and we dominated all the other schools in After School sports
As for MM read John Bowe's reply below (I'm assuming he is the same Bowe on the SC). It appears that for some odd reason MM is under the control of the BOS. I am going to dig deeper on this because maybe John is right and we need to pressure the BOS for action even if they think it is a losing cause. I have no problem making some calls. Again, I think both MM and METCO produce good results but when the cost exceeds the benefits something needs to be done and as I said with a failed override more people will speak up both pro/anti override to make things change. Trust me I have had issues with the SC and paying for search consultants and found money etc… but so far I am comfortable with the openess and direction of the process to deal with a problem that has been years in the making. I disagree with the fee approach but nobody is perfect.
It will take a miracle for me to support an override in the present environment beyond the Wellington DE which is a moral obligation to me (no my kids don't go there) but it's the fair thing to do as long as they don't go overboard on the design and with Cahill overseeing the projects I suspect they won't.
I'll let you know what I find out.
PJ
grrr….
Thanks for these numbers and the links. Yeah, numbers get bandied about and its rare that anyone goes back to check and see whether they are accurate. We're often responding to shadows, rather than reality in these debates.
I think that in light of the fact that we could save money by removing ourselves, and still send kids that want to go, that we should be seriously looking at the MM issue. It is hard to imagine that we are powerless- some lawyer somewhere must be able to help us. Note that I am not supporting dropping the program for students that want to attend, but simply that we level the playing field by getting out of the tremendous cost by sending kids as a non-member town.
PJ- you and I went to school together- that was why I was asking if you went to the Belmont schools.
Curious about the news that “generous parents have donated $10,000 to the Wellington School for use towards the purchase of technology.” At the Burbank every time the possibility of parent donors is raised we are told that donations cannot be made to our own school but rather must be distributed across all elementary schools because of equity issues. How did the Wellington navigate this?
Ah, to inflation, yes, but homes in Belmont 20 to 30 years ago weren't $800,000 either guys. Come on. Property values have gone up substantially during that time period when you consider that the home values have increased such. And I didn't say the budget had gone up six or seven times; I said people's tax bills had gone up six or seven times.
With a town that has almost 30 percent seniors, many of whom bought their homes for a fraction of what homes sell for now, do the math. I hear from a lot of old timers on fixed incomes say that they are paying six or seven times what they were paying 20 years ago. As well, you have to add on the debt exclusions and overrides of the past, granted, not a lot. But it all adds up.
I won't argue over CEO pay and other things. But I stand by what I wrote otherwise. We'll agree to disagree. I wish you the best at what decisions you decide to come to on the matters.
Tony, Prop 2.5 makes the (general) rise in property values a non-issue. Anyone who claims otherwise in Massachusetts is not paying attention. If the assessed value of the town's property zooms up, then the tax rate (as a percentage of value, not actual dollars) zooms down. This is not “agree to disagree”, this is math, and because you have not even shown the figures you are basing your estimate on, let alone any arithmetic, my guess is that you are probably wrong.
The numbers I used showed the sum of the results of taxing all of Belmont's residents, overrides, debt exclusions, everything. That's all the money we all paid in property tax. It's NOT the budget. Because the town population does not change much, and because property values tend to rise and fall together, changes in that number are a good approximation for changes in the taxes that each of us paid.
(if the previous link doesn't work for you, try this one, look for “historical property tax rate”:
http://www.town.belmont.ma.us/Public_Documents/… )
Because of how Prop 2.5 works, it is possible for some homeowners to see their individual rates increase faster than the rest, but it's unlikely to result in a huge increase.
The overall, ignoring-effects-of-inflation, property tax, increased by only a factor of 2.7 over 20 years (1987 to 2007). To get to a factor of 6 does not just mean that your property values must go up; they must go up more than twice as fast as everyone else's in Belmont. It's not a big deal if the value of your house tripled or quadrupled in those years — that happened to almost everyone. To see a 6x increase in your tax bill, your property would need to appreciate by a factor of 7 (assuming that the rest of us tripled).
In a town with 10,000, there will be a range of increases in property values, but the bulk of them will be near the average. For example, if the average house's value tripled, then most houses' values increased by between a factor of two and four. A few might increase by a factor of seven — enough to see the raw-dollar-taxes go up by a factor of six — but not a lot. Those people might be motivated to complain loudly, but they're not representative.
Furthermore, anyone that has that happen to them, is extraordinarily lucky; they can sell their house, buy a neighbor's house, and pocket half the money. And, by buying the cheaper house, they also cut their taxes in half. This is one of the reasons such an extraordinary change in value is rare; you can cash out handsomely without moving to the boonies.
So Tony, I am willing to agree that someone told you that “their taxes have increased by a factor of six in twenty years”. It's not too surprising that someone might say that, without actually checking their actual tax bills. However, the person who told you that was probably mistaken, and if they were not mistaken, they are not representative of Belmont in general, or even low-income Belmont seniors. And, they were absolutely, positively, not adjusting for inflation.
If what you are after is whether our money is well-spent, you have to look at inflation-adjusted dollars. Many (not all) “fixed incomes” are in fact inflation-adjusted.
If you insist on funding the town as if there were no inflation, you guarantee that it will be badly underfunded.
There is the additional question of how much you shape general policy from a few uncommon cases. Again, assuming that your person got his/her numbers right, they're not common. If we cut everyone's taxes until your person is comfortable, we will surely be unable to run the town. We've got special programs for people with special circumstances — tax abatements, and reduced electrical bills, and perhaps others.
How much does it cost to buy a house where you live? Can a teacher in Belmont make the same money as a teacher in NH and still live here?
I don't want a real answer to that question, and we can argue in circles all day about the salaries being fair or not, but I believe that we are so far from that issue right now- cutting 20 teachers- cannot be fixed by hiring at slightly lower salaries.
Isn't it true that we pay for most of our children's education from local tax dollars- that was not true when we were kids, was it? So the perception is that it costs so much mor eto educate kids now- but that is because more of it comes almost directly out of our pockets and into the schools. Also, federal law mandates special ed spending and NCLB mandates testing that we cannot change, or fix.
It is different, and for as much as you don't want to hear that, I don't want to hear how many kids were in your class when you were a kid.
Yes, there is Prop 2 1/2, but there have been a number of overrides and debt exclusions passed in Belmont that have permanently raised taxes beyond your methodology. These things have raised the taxes beyond 2.5 percent during the last 28 years. At least three overrides, the fire stations, the town hall and the annex, the Chenery, and the elementary school buildings before the Chenery. As well, people who bought before Prop 2 1/2, are paying much higher tax rates due to assessments, the overrides, and everything else. The average tax bill in Belmont is a little less than $9,000. That's up 8 percent this year, based on falling assessments, according to the treasurer. I know a few people in this community who state emphatically that they are paying five to six times what they used to pay just 20 to 30 years ago. If you think about it, if they paid $1,500 to $2,000 20 to 30 years ago for an average house and they pay $9,000 now, that's five times what they used to pay. That doesn't seem so hard to understand. It's simple math. Hey, maybe these people are lying. I don't have copies of their tax bills so I don't know. If they say what they say, they say it. Silly me.
House prices are dropping, thankfully, since they were way overpriced. A newer place about the size of Paul's house in my neighborhood was going for $475K last year. I don't know how those people were paying it, but they built and sold nine of them right next door to me in 2007 and early 2008. The other six lots are empty, and that says a lot too.
I’m told by our BOE members that our teachers get some of the best salaries in the state but I don't have the exact figures in front of me. Could they live in Belmont? No, probably not. But, who can these days? Let's look at some figures for a second to prove your point and mine: The average home assessment has dropped to a little more than $750K. Let's say you put 20 percent down and got a good rate, like 5.5 percent. That’s $600K. So your mortgage is about $3,500. I would bet mortgages are less than that in town, so let's say $3K. So that's $36K there plus $9K for the property taxes. So, you're at $45K before paying for anything but the house. That means you really have to be making at least six figures to live comfortably. So no. Teachers in my city and your town can't live in Belmont.
But my point was kind of about priorities and public policy. You can't really pay drama teachers $82K. I mean, when I was in school, drama was a small stipend an English teacher got for producing two plays a year. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm an artist and musician myself. Art and music programs are extremely important. When I use the drama teacher example, I'm not trying to target that one person. But it is about setting priorities. We also had larger class sizes and we also didn't have teacher aides. It does cost more to educate kids now. But the federal government has never paid for education. Education has always been funded locally. It wasn't until Ed Reform in 1993 that the state really started pumping money into systems when the school systems agreed to implement MCAS and testing. When the “Stop MCAS” movement started, it was quickly smothered because the Legislature threatened to pull Chapter 70 money if the MCAS was thrown out. Up until 10 years or so ago, Belmont had no huge problems funding education with its tax base.
I understand that things change and I understand that society has made a larger investment in education that the previous generation received. I also understand there are more challenges too, especially in the employment sector. But that gets back to my point too. If it is more expensive, and more challenging, you can't pay drama teachers $82K! And, it is probably just as challenging for the people who are paying for the investment. If they push back because they can't pay their bills, what do you say to them?
The town needs an $8 million override to fund level service for the next three years. That's $1,160 more for the average household, permanently, starting in December, on top of the $9K the average homeowner is being charged now, plus the regular 2.5 percent increase [$225]. Do you really think the town is going to vote for that?
Cutting 20 teachers sucks. Cutting any teachers sucks. But the system did add seven last year, 12 or something before that, and who knows how many before that. I'm actually surprised that it is only 20 teachers when you consider the schools will be down $2.6 million this year, and possibly more, with more state aid cuts.
Like I said, it's not easy and I feel for all of you. But Belmont isn't alone. Everyone is going through the same situation.
Well…hold on…30 years ago their houses might have been worth $150,000 and now they might be worth $750,000 to $1,000,000. Was their expectation really that they'd get the benefit of their homes appreciating without a change in its assessed value (and their taxes)? You seem to suggest that taxing the increased value of homes is unfair — but that appreciation is an asset that these people can tap, either when they sell their home or by taking out an home equity loan or a reverse mortgage. In fact, many people have done that already. Tony, I think the point some readers have been trying to make is that you've got to look at the aggregate numbers, as reported by the town or tracked by the state, rather than drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence from a few disgruntled residents. I know there are towns in Belmont's peer group that have a lower property tax rate than Belmont (Wellesley is one that comes to mind) but those towns typically do it by having a more diversified tax base — not by eroding the quality of life in their town by cutting education and other services. Three 2 1/2 overrides in 3 years is nothing — especially since prop 2 1/2 puts towns in an impossible position: raising revenues by 2.5% a year when their other costs — health care, utilities, salaries — are growing much faster than that. The argument might as easily be “Look how frugal we've been — increasing taxes only once every decade, on average.”
Tony, I don't think you understand how this works. My “methodology” is simply to look at the property tax bills collected by the town. That gets everything — prop 2.5 increases, operating overrides, debt exclusions. It's all in there. It also says so, right at the bottom of the document I referenced.
Unless there is a dramatic change in your assessment RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE TOWN, changes in property values have NO EFFECT on your property taxes under Prop 2.5 (barring certain extreme cases that we are nowhere close to). This is what Prop 2.5 was designed to do — to decouple property taxes from property values.
Stating something emphatically does not make it true. And even if it is true for those few people, they are not working with inflation-adjusted dollars, and they are just a few people. Most of us are not paying 5, 6 or 8 times as much as we did 20 or 30 years ago; most of us are paying less than 4 times what we paid 30 years ago, otherwise the town would have had a larger increase in property tax revenues (3.7x in 29 years). And YOU MUST ADJUST FOR INFLATION. You cannot pretend that it is sufficient to run the town on a fixed income, when inflation is happening all around you.
Overall, property taxes have risen a hair faster than inflation, including all overrides and debt exclusions. We should obviously look at this increase, because it is persistent and grows over time. It is not alarming, because so much of our property taxes go to wages for tasks where we don't know how to increase efficiency (teaching, police, fire), and where we care that the jobs are done well. Wages usually grow faster than inflation (though they did not when Bush was president) and that certainly sets expectations in any negotiation with unions.
And further, we CAN make comparisons with other towns to get a sanity check on our taxing and spending (this was one of the goals of Ed Reform). Our education spending is low, but our results are still good. That indicates are schools are probably efficient, and also indicates that we should not be too quick to further cut spending if we want to maintain school standards. Our taxes are high — but we can look at the town's tax base (little commercial property, compared to other towns) and find an immediate explanation for that. AND, anyone who lives here, either bought into the no-commercial-tax-base, or helped pass the zoning rules that made it happen.
And maybe my mathematically correct hedge words (“probably”) set off alarms for you. In plain English:
- our school system is not wasting money,
- our taxes have not gone up dramatically.
- the people who are complaining to you, are mistaken.
(these statements are all probably/mostly true — in fact, there is bound to be some small amount of money wasted in any multimillion dollar enterprise, and in a town of 10000 homes, some of them once-upon-a-time fixer-uppers, a few people may have seen their property taxes increase quite a bit — but just a few.)
Just a note to all that i've tweaked the comment system to get rid of that annoying threading and to put the most recent comments on top. let me know if this totally kills the vibe for you, but i find it much more easy to navigate. –paul.
Interested to see if Dr. Chase has any stats that show what happens when housing supply exceeds demand? Last I spoke with a Realtor… Belmont homes dropped about 6-7% over last year. Of course they said that was good because we have been blessed with low supply. Any uptick in supply could lead to panic selling and then we are in a world of hurt. Many people who bought in 2004/2005 in Belmont are already underwater on the price they paid vs. what the house is worth.
So are we more likely to see an exodus from Town if we raise taxes another $750-$1,500 or if we cut services along with almost every other community. Just reminding some folks here there are consequences on both sides of an override.
PS: Joe Scali is the MM rep but I can't find any contact info on the Town site. He is a member of the board so hopefully he can shed more light on the contract and justification for not fighting it.
Exodus…to where, exactly? I've never seen evidence that incremental increases in property taxes (as in: once every seven or ten years or so) drive residents out of desirable towns like Belmont and to lower cost towns, though its certainly true that high cost of living might drive them out of Massachusetts, altogether.
I am not sure what happens if we do one or the other. It depends somewhat on whether people bought to live here, or bought to speculate on property, and how many long-term residents remain. The housing boom would have the effect of increasing the number of speculators (who, viewing the house only as a financial asset, might walk away from their mortgage because they were underwater) and decreasing the number of low-income long-term owners (because why wouldn't you cash out for wheelbarrows full of money?) For someone who bought to live here, I think being underwater is not such an issue, provided that they can pay their mortgage — and if they can't pay their mortgage, a tax increase is the least of their problems.
You also need to keep your numbers straight, whenever possible. I understand that the average tax bill is $9000. The yearly 2.5% increase is $225 (this year). If the town needs to raise revenues by $8,000,000, that is $800 per household. Depending on how you count it, that's either $1025 in increase, or “another” $800 more. Either way, the increase is not $1500 — except, of course, if we decide to rebuild another town building.
I'm using $8million because (so I hear) we need $5m this year, $8m next year, and $10m the year after. So, we bank $3m the first year, and spend $2m of that two years later. From the point of view of avoiding cuts (though not reversing previous cuts, and let's please not kid ourselves — we've had cuts) $8million is a conservative number.
Returning to the recent purchasers, who might be underwater — their mortgage rate (say, 5%) is going to be about 4.5 times their tax rate (about 1.1%). Rough average numbers give a house value of $800,000, a tax of $8800, and a yearly mortgage of $40,000. Are they going to leave town over $800?
Well…hold on…30 years ago their houses might have been worth $150,000 and now they might be worth $750,000 to $1,000,000. Was their expectation really that they'd get the benefit of their homes appreciating without a change in its assessed value (and their taxes)? You seem to suggest that taxing the increased value of homes is unfair — but that appreciation is an asset that these people can tap, either when they sell their home or by taking out an home equity loan or a reverse mortgage. In fact, many people have done that already. Tony, I think the point some readers have been trying to make is that you've got to look at the aggregate numbers, as reported by the town or tracked by the state, rather than drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence from a few disgruntled residents. I know there are towns in Belmont's peer group that have a lower property tax rate than Belmont (Wellesley is one that comes to mind) but those towns typically do it by having a more diversified tax base — not by eroding the quality of life in their town by cutting education and other services. Three 2 1/2 overrides in 30 years (and I'm taking your word for that) is nothing — especially since prop 2 1/2 puts towns in an impossible position: raising revenues by 2.5% a year when their other costs — health care, utilities, salaries — are growing much faster than that. The argument might as easily be “Look how frugal we've been — increasing taxes only once every decade, on average.”
Tony, I don't think you understand how this works. My “methodology” is simply to look at the property tax bills collected by the town. That gets everything — prop 2.5 increases, operating overrides, debt exclusions. It's all in there. It also says so, right at the bottom of the document I referenced.
Unless there is a dramatic change in your assessment RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE TOWN, changes in property values have NO EFFECT on your property taxes under Prop 2.5 (barring certain extreme cases that we are nowhere close to). This is what Prop 2.5 was designed to do — to decouple property taxes from property values.
Stating something emphatically does not make it true. And even if it is true for those few people, they are not working with inflation-adjusted dollars, and they are just a few people. Most of us are not paying 5, 6 or 8 times as much as we did 20 or 30 years ago; most of us are paying less than 4 times what we paid 30 years ago, otherwise the town would have had a larger increase in property tax revenues (3.7x in 29 years). And YOU MUST ADJUST FOR INFLATION. You cannot pretend that it is sufficient to run the town on a fixed income, when inflation is happening all around you.
Overall, property taxes have risen a hair faster than inflation, including all overrides and debt exclusions. We should obviously look at this increase, because it is persistent and grows over time. It is not alarming, because so much of our property taxes go to wages for tasks where we don't know how to increase efficiency (teaching, police, fire), and where we care that the jobs are done well. Wages usually grow faster than inflation (though they did not when Bush was president) and that certainly sets expectations in any negotiation with unions.
And further, we CAN make comparisons with other towns to get a sanity check on our taxing and spending (this was one of the goals of Ed Reform). Our education spending is low, but our results are still good. That indicates are schools are probably efficient, and also indicates that we should not be too quick to further cut spending if we want to maintain school standards. Our taxes are high — but we can look at the town's tax base (little commercial property, compared to other towns) and find an immediate explanation for that. AND, anyone who lives here, either bought into the no-commercial-tax-base, or helped pass the zoning rules that made it happen.
And maybe my mathematically correct hedge words (“probably”) set off alarms for you. In plain English:
- our school system is not wasting money,
- our taxes have not gone up dramatically.
- the people who are complaining to you, are mistaken.
(these statements are all probably/mostly true — in fact, there is bound to be some small amount of money wasted in any multimillion dollar enterprise, and in a town of 10000 homes, some of them once-upon-a-time fixer-uppers, a few people may have seen their property taxes increase quite a bit — but just a few.)
Just a note to all that i've tweaked the comment system to get rid of that annoying threading and to put the most recent comments on top. let me know if this totally kills the vibe for you, but i find it much more easy to navigate. –paul.
Interested to see if Dr. Chase has any stats that show what happens when housing supply exceeds demand? Last I spoke with a Realtor… Belmont homes dropped about 6-7% over last year. Of course they said that was good because we have been blessed with low supply. Any uptick in supply could lead to panic selling and then we are in a world of hurt. Many people who bought in 2004/2005 in Belmont are already underwater on the price they paid vs. what the house is worth.
So are we more likely to see an exodus from Town if we raise taxes another $750-$1,500 or if we cut services along with almost every other community. Just reminding some folks here there are consequences on both sides of an override.
PS: Joe Scali is the MM rep but I can't find any contact info on the Town site. He is a member of the board so hopefully he can shed more light on the contract and justification for not fighting it.
Exodus…to where, exactly? I've never seen evidence that incremental increases in property taxes (as in: once every seven or ten years or so) drive residents out of desirable towns like Belmont and to lower cost towns, though its certainly true that high cost of living might drive them out of Massachusetts, altogether.
I am not sure what happens if we do one or the other. It depends somewhat on whether people bought to live here, or bought to speculate on property, and how many long-term residents remain. The housing boom would have the effect of increasing the number of speculators (who, viewing the house only as a financial asset, might walk away from their mortgage because they were underwater) and decreasing the number of low-income long-term owners (because why wouldn't you cash out for wheelbarrows full of money?) For someone who bought to live here, I think being underwater is not such an issue, provided that they can pay their mortgage — and if they can't pay their mortgage, a tax increase is the least of their problems.
You also need to keep your numbers straight, whenever possible. I understand that the average tax bill is $9000. The yearly 2.5% increase is $225 (this year). If the town needs to raise revenues by $8,000,000, that is $800 per household. Depending on how you count it, that's either $1025 in increase, or “another” $800 more. Either way, the increase is not $1500 — except, of course, if we decide to rebuild another town building.
I'm using $8million because (so I hear) we need $5m this year, $8m next year, and $10m the year after. So, we bank $3m the first year, and spend $2m of that two years later. From the point of view of avoiding cuts (though not reversing previous cuts, and let's please not kid ourselves — we've had cuts) $8million is a conservative number.
Returning to the recent purchasers, who might be underwater — their mortgage rate (say, 5%) is going to be about 4.5 times their tax rate (about 1.1%). Rough average numbers give a house value of $800,000, a tax of $8800, and a yearly mortgage of $40,000. Are they going to leave town over $800?