As a member of the Weathersfield School Board, I am writing to correct inaccuracies in the letter from the members of the Weathersfield Budget Advisory Committee, which recommended that voters not support the proposed school budget (“Weathersfield school budget too big,” Feb. 16).
The Budget Advisory Committee’s letter included one gross error and inaccurately suggested that the School Board failed to adopt its recommendations that would have saved Weathersfield taxpayers significant money. The committee made no such recommendations. The total of its suggested cuts — including the athletic and drama programs — amounted to about $10,000, or three-tenths of one penny on the tax rate.
The proposed school budget is up a modest 3.85% from last year, despite an increase in health insurance costs of over 13% and the need for the school budget to absorb some costs previously covered by federal funds.
The advisory committee’s letter stated that, “After applying $119,000 from the tax relief fund, which leaves a zero balance for emergencies, and $107,000 from local revenue, the budget is a $6,158,972.” The budget total is correct, but the other figures are simply wrong.
First, there is no official “tax relief fund.” In past years, when actual spending was lower than budgeted at year’s end, the surplus was available for use the following year to help defray the costs to taxpayers of budget increases. Calling this a “tax relief fund” inaccurately suggests that the board is socking away taxpayer money into a rainy-day fund and that we should avoid using those funds except for emergencies.
It is not the practice of the School Board to have taxpayers pay into or maintain a surplus fund. After last year’s budget closed, $19,220 of surplus remained, and has been applied to this year’s budget. This does mean that, should special education (or any other) costs exceed budget this year, we will not have surplus funds already set aside to use. The alternative is to raise taxes even further to maintain a surplus for rainy days, something I do not believe Weathersfield voters would support.
The proposed budget includes the balance of the previous year’s surplus — $19,220 — and an additional $100,773 transfer from the general fund. The general fund transfer is included every year and this year’s figure is about $20,000 higher than last year. These figures do not represent a major departure from previous years’ budgeting practices.
Still, school taxes are projected to rise this year. Why? There are three key reasons:
1. The town’s reported poverty rate is down for the second year in a row. While this could be good news, it is possible, even likely, that some folks who qualify for free or reduced school lunches (from whence our poverty rate is derived) choose not to apply. A lower poverty rate, whether real or under-reported, has major impacts on our school budget. This year, we expect to lose federal funding for our Title I math teacher, a critically important position at our school. The administration and board agreed that we must have this position; without federal funds tied to the poverty rate, it is up to the town to fund the position locally.
2. Weathersfield is not experiencing the long-term decline in student numbers seen around the state. In fact, our K-8 numbers have grown steadily since 2014-15, declining only twice in the past 10 years. We have thus far managed to avoid the heavy budget impacts associated with adding a classroom teacher. Instead, this year we added one paraeducator for the middle school classrooms, which are all projected to be large next year.
3. Finally, our town’s common level of appraisal continues to decline. That means our property values have risen but our tax assessments have not. The state applies a multiplying factor to our school budget to account for this discrepancy. This is the gorilla in the room, and has nothing to do with the school’s spending decisions.
Still, we have found some savings. A new net-metering agreement for solar power at the school will begin saving taxpayers over $5,500 per year on electricity in 2020. Volunteers gave hundreds of hours of their time this year, saving the school upward of $30,000.
Weathersfield voters should know that 72% of Weathersfield homeowners qualify for at least a partial rebate on property taxes, based on household income. Most Weathersfield residents will not bear the full brunt of the tax increase. While tax increases can be a hardship, these rebates are available to lessen the blow for struggling individuals and families.
The proposed school budget cuts very close to the bone. We do not have lavish school services or many “extras” that we can do without. De-funding athletics or drama, our main extracurricular activities, will not move the needle. It will not change the rising cost of health care or special education, neither of which is controlled locally. A budget cut of over $32,000 would only change the tax rate by one penny. If this budget is not approved, it will likely require us to cut staff positions, with real and tangible impacts to our children’s education.
Our school is perhaps our town’s most valuable asset, and our children our best investment in the future. Please join me in supporting the school budget on Tuesday.
The writer is the vice chair of the Weathersfield School Board.