|
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
February 14, 2006
Present: Barbara Ripa, Maureen Marshall, Dave Tobin, Mindy
Kempner, Sherry Kersey, Michael Zapantis, Judith Klimkiewicz, Steve Nembirkow,
Donna Leep, Dick Robbat, Joe Kurland, Marcia Lukon, Gene Carlo, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Dee Dee Niswonger
See Talking points at end of minutes.
Once again MARS owes much thanks to both Dave Tobin and Gene Carlo, for
analyzing the House 2 (the 2 instead of the more familiar House 1 in used
because this is the second year of the current legislative session) proposals
and changes to Chapter 70. These proposals are significant and include new ideas
for the calculation of required local contributions.
House 2 puts 386 million into the Foundation budget and does not use figures
reflective of current expenditures. Unless that is changed, the other proposals
will wreck havoc on districts. Chapter 70 is increased 163 million. Part of that
growth is 4.5% for inflation, and 37 million for increases in health insurance.
The real cost of health insurance is 500 million and that sum is not reflected
in the Foundation budget.
House 2 is using the aggregate wealth method talked about earlier in the season
to calculate required local contribution. The Local contribution target is
funded equally (50/50) by total property wealth capacity and total income.
Because statewide property value (816 B) is much higher than state wide annual
income (169 B), property is assigned a multiplier of .3331% and income of
1.6051%. In effect the state has set a tax rate designed to pay local
contribution. When the product of each, using the rates set, is added together
that becomes the “combined Target Local Contribution” . Those above the target
will have their required contribution lowered by 20% of the gap in FY07. Over 5
years all municipalities above the target would be at target. Part of the
calculation also incorporates an 88% cap to ensure that all districts receive
some state aid.
The state wants the Foundation Budget funded by statewide local contribution of
60% of the cost, and the state putting in 40%. Each towns’ contribution will
vary according to their capacity to pay as measured by the aggregate wealth
method.
64% of communities are above target, and will experience the reductions
described above.
The remaining 36% will continue to see their required contributions increase by
their municipal revenue growth factor. In some cases enrollment loss has placed
communities among the 36%.
Since taxpayers believe that the Foundation budget exactly indicates what is
needed to provide good public education, the difficulty here is clear. The
foundation budget is the basis of all the calculations for both local
contribution and state aid. Without accuracy in the numbers for the foundation
budget, all the rest is also not accurate and the taxpayers are being misled. We
must work to raise the foundation budget so that it is using current
expenditures. Currently, statewide, 121% is spent on education, that is 21%
above the Foundation budget is the state average.
House 2 proposes changes to aid.
Foundation aid carries a community from local contribution to foundation if that
community is required only to spend at foundation; Growth Aid (which is new in
House 2) carries a community required to spend above foundation to its required
Net School Spending. In the case of Growth Aid, if the foundation falls from
prior year, Growth Aid will also fall. If enrollment decreases 4.5% this loss
can happen.
This new method does not include “weighted” students, i.e. low income, and
English Language Learners. The Foundation budget that is being used has only
eleven categories instead of the eighteen previously used, and the categories
have changed, not been amalgamated.
Unexpected downsides in retiree medical insurance ruling from state results
in unfunded mandates
Often a retiree is replaced by a younger person. The retiree’s percent of
insurance is protected by state law. It was assumed that the costs for the
younger person in salary and insurances would be substantially decreased leaving
a “gap” that would help to meet other costs like the retiree’s insurance. This
is not necessarily turning out to be so. Because of higher training expected for
the younger person, and because that person may often have a family, whereas the
retiree did not, any “gap” is much smaller than anticipated. With the state
requirements, this situation can be described as an unfunded mandate for
schools.
Problems with spousal insurance were discussed, with warning that is some cases
no school committee vote has okayed this insurance, and that school committee
votes should be checked to insure that the district is not meeting unnecessary
costs.
Warnings were also offered about changing retiree health insurance in any way
without checking state statutes because there are very firm limitations on what
can be changed.
Local contribution precedent set
Precedent has been set, by the settlement of the Wachusett case, that member
towns of a district are required to meet and follow state guidelines as far as
local contribution is concerned. The only way to not meet required local
contribution payments is through a 100% agreement of all member towns, an
agreement which must be re-voted annually. Another way of saying this is that
the state prevails over local agreements unless there is a 100% vote of member
towns.
With adequate Foundation Budget the causes of much of this dissension would
be reduced, even removed.
House 2 has a long list of “extra’ or new programs costing millions of
dollars. If all these dollars were put into increasing the foundation budget,
they would be dollars much better spent. One such “pot” is the 18 million for
$100. laptops for every high school child. These laptops are so simple they
cannot use the software needed for high school learning.
Current level of state commitment back to communities.
State is providing about 37.5 % back to communities. Some years ago it was
47%.
Regional transportation
House 2 has added 5 million to the line item, for which we are grateful.
Unfortunately we are seeing 10 to 12 % increases and so districts are urged to
budget at level funding, AND to work hard on our legislators to increase the
line item, # 7035-0006.
Talking points
MARS supports MASS position
MASS believes that the foundation budget needs to be more aggressively increased
and that $300M in Chapter 70 aid would be needed in FY07 to fund a phase-in of
an adequate foundation budget.
Although aggregate wealth is a measurable and definable method to determine one
part of revenue stream the Foundation Budget must be addressed.
Regional transportation now costs about 61 million. Regions were formed with a
promise of 100% reimbursement, one year later. Work for full funding of this
vital funding.
Add SPED transportation into Circuit Breaker. Every district in the Commonwealth
will benefit. It is necessary to increase the 3.75% SPED children to 4% as
earlier agreed.
MASC’s Day on The Hill is April 26. It’s a good day to plan to go to Boston and
participate in this annual event for education.
We appreciate the interest and hard work of our legislators during this
demanding season.
Respectfully written and submitted by Dee Dee Niswonger
For More Information Contact:
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools
P.O. Box 334, Williamsburg, MA 01096-0334
Tel: 413-268-3607
E-mail:
niswonger@comcast.net
|
Massachusetts Association of
Regional Schools