MGRHS board proposes 5.7% budget hike to towns, shedding science teacher but adding four positions in special ed

(UPDATED: 10:40 a.m., March 31)

Mount Greylock Regional High School would shed a science teaching position next year  -- but add four posts overall, including four in special-education services -- under a proposed $9.9-million budget – a 5.7 percent increase over this year -- approved by the school board. The figure includes a proposed $23,000 special appropriation which Lanesborough voters will be asked to approve over and above the town's mandated share of the regional district's budget.  READ FULL STORY. The board also welcomed a planned gift of 40-60 computers from Williams College. Two members of the Williamstown Finance Committee comment; saying the MGRHS budget is more than 2-percent above the FinCom's target and includes four new positions. (READ THEIR COMMENTS)

Comments

[Charles Fox]

This comment is posted by Bill Densmore in behalf (from a technical point of view) of Charles Fox, a member of the town's finance committee, who gives permission (at the bottom) for it to circulate. Mr. Fox wrote by email from chaswfox@hotmail.com

Bill,

Though your figures are correct as they stand, they are also somewhat misleading. The thing that most readers would really want to know, I presume, is what kind of an increase is being proposed over last year's budget allocation for Wmst. and Lanesboro. In that regard Wmst. will experience an increase of $214,024 or 4.99%. Lanesboro will experience a much smaller percentage increase, namely, only .94% ($20,058). The proposed Wmst. allocation is 1.49% more than the available monies from the Town (which with a declining growth base can barely add 1% to the mandated tax increase limit of 2.5%). Thus Peter Fohlin sought (once again) to keep the total budget increase (and the total increase in each budget center) at 3.5%, which is essentially to level-fund everything for next year. That's all the money we've got to go around. So MGRHS will have to make up the extra amount (1.49%)($64,037) from its Excess and Deficiency Fund, which happily just got accounting certified (for the first time in two years) at $263,000! But remember that once you take out the $64,037 needed for the budget shortfall, that leaves only circa $199,000 to carve out some kind of an equitable salary increase for the teachers, while still preserving some reasonable amount in the E&D for emergencies. (Everyone should read, and you should re-print, Shawn Burdick's Letter to the Editor in last week's Eagle.)

I think you can also see the handwriting on the wall in terms of funding our schools over the foreseeable future. The 2.5% law is not going to change, as we all know. We can't seem to get reasonable increases in Chap. 70 support monies from the State even with a Democratic administration. The School Choice law only gives us about $5K support from the State for each choice student, whereas the actual cost is circa $10.6K (excluding SPED and transportation costs). MGRHS's uncontrollable cost increases are always greater than 2.5% of the budget, and indeed greater than 3.5%, even if we assume that we can continue annually to eke out an additional 1% of revenue from new growth in Town. And we can be absolutely confident that Williams College is not going to allow itself to be put into the position of picking up Greylock's shortfall each year. In sum, there is really only one possible realistic source of funds for maintaining the quality of the schools: new growth added to the tax rolls on an annual basis.

Growth has already begun to decline (down 14.8% in 2007)($16M in new growth is needed each and every year just to add the 1% revenue to stay level-funded in the budget). Now let us suppose that the Town in its wisdom decides to pass a new ConCom proposal that will turn almost every development project in Town, much less routine road maintenance, into a wetlands controversy. And let us say that the Town in its wisdom decides to elect to the Planning Board people whose overt or implicit agenda is to slow or stop growth. You can obviously see that such votes, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, are quite simply VOTES AGAINST QUALITY EDUCATION IN WILLIAMSTOWN. And as Steve Sheppard has forcefully argued from his economic studies, where the funding for schools and the quality of schools declines, then property values themselves start declining. It's a vicious cycle, and in our case that vicious cycle will be fueled by people thinking they are simply voting for some new environmental ideal or voting to keep Wmst. small and pretty. And on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that even if we easily approved every possible development project that could conceivably come forward, there is so little development potential left in Wmst. that it would only keep the wolf from the door for perhaps a decade. What we ideally need, both immediately and for as long as we can make it last into the future, is as much high-end, low Town service impact development as we can possibly generate. The more wealthy Williams alums we can get to build high-end part-year-use homes in Williamstown, the more we all benefit tax-wise, even if it adds another element of elitism to the already very elite quality of life in this Town. I think we can more happily bear that social impact than declines in school quality and overall property values.

If you can see any other realistic way in which we can continue to fund Town services and our schools than the route I have proposed (i.e. new growth added to the tax rolls), I'd love to hear it. As far as I can tell, no one on FinCom seems to see any other way; and I think we are all pretty pessimistic about the direction in which the Town seems to be moving on this issue. On the other hand, if you think my analysis is accurate, then I trust you will get aboard with the process of trying to forge some hard-headed good sense into the minds of a lot of people who are prepared to vote for knee-jerk environmental "ideals" or who think the best thing for Wmst. is to keep it very small and very elite. (And I give you permission in advance to circulate my letter as you see fit.)

Charles Fox

[Jeff Strait]

Jefferson Strait, (Jefferson.Strait@williams.edu) a member of the Williamstown Finance Committee, emailed this comment, which is posted in his behalf by Bill Densmore:

Hi Bill,

MGRHS presented its budget to the Williamstown Finance Committee on
March 27, the day after its school board approved the budget. We
were told that the teaching staff will increase by 4 FTEs for FY2009,
including 3 paraprofessionals and one regular teacher (English, I
believe). So, rather then "shedding one teaching position," the
school will ADD one regular teacher. There may be some shifting of
teaching FTE's from one subject to another in order to cap
enrollments in 9th grade English classes and to initiate a
requirement that all students take 4 years of math.

Regards,
Jeff

[Peter Fohlin]

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:05:47 -0400
From: Peter L. Fohlin
To: Bill Densmore
Subject: RE: MGRHS board proposes 5.7% budget hike to towns, shedding one teaching position

Bill -

What is the source of your "lose one teaching position next year"? The School Committee approved budget that I have shows
faculty FTE's 55.99 --> 55.6, Para-Special Ed 19 --> 23, and total all staff 101.13 --> 105.14.

Thanks,

Peter

------------------------------------
Town of Williamstown
Peter L. Fohlin
Town Manager, Williamstown
pfohlin@williamstown.net
tel: (413) 458-3500
fax: (413) 458-4839
mobile: (413) 441-6629
http://www.williamstown.net
---------------------------------