$189 A Year

The amount of additional property tax on an average home (valued at $306,000) in Northampton following the passing of a $2 million dollar override yesterday. Of the 9,335 residents who voted, 60% approved the override which passed in 11 of 14 wards. More details of the election can be found at masslive and for those who are interested in the methods behind the scenes of the successful campaign, check out voteyesnorthampton.

The Facilitation of Community Choices Committee, in its presentation to the community, illustrated this same additional tax increase for Amherst residents for three potential override levels ranging from $1 million to $3 million. The average assessment in Amherst is higher than that of Northampton ($332,500 as of July 2008) and the tax rate is higher ($15.82 compared to $11.48 for Northampton), so the average additional tax burden in Amherst would be greater. For Amherst, if there were the same $2 million override in FY10 as Northampton, that would mean an additional $319 per year in property taxes for a resident with a house assessed at $332,500.

Since it is being quoted frequently in Town Meeting these days, I thought I would excerpt the section on overrides from the FCCC report here:

The Committee recognizes that an override will probably be necessary at some point in the next 5 years to sustain even the most essential school and municipal services. All members agree that an override will not solve Amherst’s long-term budget gap and substantial cutbacks will be necessary regardless. Committee members hold a range of views regarding the timing of an override and the criteria that must be met before considering an override. Some members are against seeking an override vote for the FY2010 budget because they fear it would be an excuse to postpone difficult budget decisions. Others would favor keeping that option open if State aid decreases significantly. Others think an FY2010 override is necessary to preserve essential services while town leaders develop a restructuring plan. We recommend that if an override is put forward, a menu override approach be used to allow voters a choice of where to direct the revenues.

It will be interesting to see whether the vote in Northampton increases interest in a FY10 override for Amherst or whether Town Meeting members and others will follow the recommendations of the Finance Committee and vote the budget as it has been proposed.

$34,704

The difference between the library budget suggested by the Library Trustees ($2,128,288) and that recommended by the Finance Committee ($2,093,584). According to the Finance Committee Report to Town Meeting, Part II, the Finance Committee makes this recommendation in an attempt to more equally share the budget reductions among all budget areas. This would represent a -1.5% decrease in support for the library budget and compares to the -1.4% reduction to the municipal budget, -1.5% reduction to the elementary school budget, and -8.9% reduction to the capital budget. The regional budget is more complicated due to our regional agreement and varying assessments by town; the total regional budget is being reduced by 1.2% although the Amherst assessment is going to be increased by 1.4% (still less than the originally recommended 3.7% increase).

If Town Meeting votes the Finance Committee budget for the library, this will mean that the library will fail to meet Massachusetts' Municipal Appropriation Requirement. This requirement requires cities and towns to fund their libraries at 2.5% above the average of the preceding three years’ municipal appropriations in order for the libraries to be certified and to continue receiving state aid. If their funding falls below that level, the library may lose its certification. According to the handout prepared for Town Meeting by the library trustees, this could mean the loss of state aid (~$70,000 for Amherst), the loss of inter-library loan and other reciprocal services with certified libraries in other towns, and the inability for the library to apply for grants under the Library Services and Technology Act program (loss of $11,200 for ESL and Spanish programs).

It is apparently possibly, however, for apply for a waiver by showing municipal financial hardship (we definitely have that criterion met!) and demonstrating that the library is not taking a disproportionate share of the budget cuts (again, that criterion met). The vast majority of municipalities seeking a waiver, including nearby Northampton, have had them granted.

Town Meeting is going to have to vote on this budget and despite my sympathy for the library's current situation, I have to trust the Finance Committee and vote for their recommendation. If nothing else, the library has not been seen--during this long budget season--as actively looking for serious restructuring the way our other budget areas have been. Perhaps this is just perception, but when I read "in the Library Trustees' proposed budget, there would be 25.2 FTEs, unchanged from FY 09. As of this writing, library staff had not determined how to reduce their budget to meet the Finance Committee's recommended budget" in the Finance Committee report, it bothers me. Especially when we are seeing a reduction of 1.5 FTE for the municipal budget (and substantial changes in funding levels for many areas), a decrease of 23 FTE for the elementary schools (including the loss of 12.25 FTE teachers and the closing of one school), and a decrease of 27.5 FTE for the regional schools (including 17 FTE teachers and the elimination of two academic teams in the middle school).

In the report from the Facilitation of Community Choices Committee, the public made various comments about the library budget, and the most commonly-cited suggestion was "close the branch libraries." Now I know that doing so would not change the math in the equation relating to the Appropriation Requirement, but the fact that that is not even on the table for discussion (although closing an elementary school was) also bothers me. Especially when Bonne Isman, the Library Director, told the FCCC that if the budget for FY10 were funded at or below level services, closing one or more of the branch libraries would be a possibilty for restructuring.

I have personally used both branch libraries and really appreciate them and understand that they contribute to community in those areas, but I have also been to Marks Meadow and appreciate that it contributed to that community (but still supported its closing due to financial and enrollment reasons). It may be that the town would really save virtually no money by closing one or more of the branch libraries, but as a taxpayer and member of Town Meeting, I would at least like to see some serious discussion of this by the library trustees, including an estimate of cost savings for the closing of each branch. If nothing else, opening this discussion might help the community see the library as more of a "team player" in this difficult budget season.

Numbers For A Reader

Over the weekend I received an email from a reader who had a few questions about the recently-announced cuts to the regional school budget. This reader said:

"I keep thinking that if the middle schools goes from 6 teams to 4, that means a third of the middle school team teachers are being cut. I'm assuming 4 teachers per team, 24 team teachers and 8 of 24 equals a third cut. Am I wrong? Also wondering if they plan to add more SPED or building blocks teachers next year how that skews the regular ed teachers: special needs percentages of the budget. It seems like it would really change the numbers. Perhaps you can investigate and post in your blog? If arms is cutting a third of its regular ed teacher, that's headline news I would think."

So, I looked into it. I reviewed the committee level budget (dated June 2, 2009), made a few calls, and wanted to follow up as requested. More information on the cuts can also be found on Catherine Sanderson's School Committe blog entry about the June 2 meeting.

To start off, we have to figure out what is considered "team" at the middle school and what is not. Next year, team is proposed to be science, social studies, English, and exploratory. Math may or may not be team next year but we can run the numbers either way. There are currently 6 teams at ARMS, giving us either 24 team teachers or 30 team teachers (if you count math). That is our baseline.

Under the currently-proposed cuts, ARMS is slated to lose five academic teachers (according to my sources, these will be two science teachers, two social studies teachers, and one English teacher) and 2 exploratory teachers for a net loss of 7 team teachers. Next year the middle school will then be down to either 17 team teachers or 23 team teachers (if you count math). This represents a reduction of 29.2% or 23.3% (with math). The reader above is right...this is a big reduction.

Now on to the second part of the question. A follow-up contact revealed that the referred to "building blocks" was really referencing the Bridges program at ARMS. That program currently has two FTE teachers listed and has 8 students. The originally-proposed FY10 budget for the region listed the addition of two teachers for Bridges which would have doubled that number. The latest version of the budget lists only one additional teacher for Bridges but one of the School Committee meetings I attended recently explained that by saying that although they were still hiring two additional teachers for Bridges, one was being funded through stimulus money so does not appear as a budget addition. Still, the reader is correct again...the regular education seems to be taking a proportionally greater cut to its teachers.

Finally, the reader wonders about percentage of budget for regular education versus special education. To make things simple, I only looked at the "teachers" line in each (there is a third line which is ELL teachers that is not considered here) since the original question was specifically about teachers. In FY09, 75.7% of the regular and special education teacher budget was spent on regular education teachers. Under the committee-level budget before additions and subtractions (if I understand the document correctly), regular education teachers make up 76.1% of that same area of the budget. After the cuts and additions, however, regular education teachers make up only 74.5% of the budget (counting only one of the Bridges teachers). So yes, those proportional additions and subtractions do change the proportion of the budget spent on regular education teachers.

As to why this is not headline news, I am not sure. But as the parent of a rising seventh-grader, facing class sizes of 27, you can bet it is headline news in our household.

$62,552

According to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, this is the average salary of a teacher in the Amherst-Pelham regional district in 2008. The average salary of a teacher in the Amherst elementary district is $59,376. Again, according to the Commonwealth. In recent budget discussions of the School Committee, an average salary of $54,000 was used and I am not sure if our administration calculates average salary differently than the Commonwealth (possible) or if there is another explanation.

Either way, the salaries of our teachers compare favorably to the salaries of teachers in other local districts although they are lower than the state average (which includes salaries of those teaching in the more expensive eastern part of Massachusetts). Of the local districts I looked at, Amherst-Pelham teachers had the highest salaries followed by Pelham and then by Amherst. Lowest among these districts were Pioneer (the only district below $50,000), Hatfield, and Hadley.

If you look at the salary data in terms of enrollment (i.e. salary per student), the top districts are Amherst (at $6,058 per student), Pelham ($5,615), Leverett ($5,332), and Amherst-Pelham ($5,312). Lowest were Belchertown, Pioneer, and Hadley (all below $4,000 per student).

The current teachers' contract has a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) raise of 3.5% and the latest article on the topic in the Gazette indicates that another 50% of teachers are also receiving a 4% "step" raise (which would apparently bring the total raise for those individuals to 7.5%). Thus, a rough calculation of the average salary for Amherst-Pelham teachers next year would be $64,741 (without a step raise). The average salary for an Amherst teacher would be $61,454 (again, without a step raise).

I am certainly not questioning the value of teachers or their right to earn a living wage. I am also not sure how I feel about the town/schools going back on a previously-negotiated contract. I did, however, want to take a more general look at the comparative salaries in our area to see whether or not giving up a COLA raise this next year would put our teachers at the lower end of the local salary spectrum. From what I have seen, it would not.

I am looking forward to hearing more from the teachers' union and from the School Committee about the issue of revisiting the contract. It is possible for some flexible and creative solutions that might keep everyone relatively happy (after all, who is really going to be truly happy with all these cuts?). For example, would a 1% raise (or 2%) be a good compromise? Or for those receiving a step increase to give up COLA raises so everyone is still getting some sort of raise? This could be a very interesting few weeks before Town Meeting resumes.

7PM

Tonight. High School library. The long-awaited School Committee vote on whether or not Marks Meadow will be closed at the end of the 2010-2011 school year. At stake is the $673,000 per year in savings estimated with the closure of the school. (First year savings will be $125,000 less due to one-time moving costs and there is apparently a transportation increase of $16,000.) Also at stake is the future of a school which has many vocal supporters (see the op-ed section of last week's Bulletin for a sample).

The plot apparently thickened Monday with the addition of negotiations with UMass about the future of the building if it does close (Superintendent Geryk recommends moving the two alternative high schools to the building), or alternatively, the payment by UMass for the education of the approximately 50 students per year from UMass who receive a public school education in Amherst tax-free. The article in the Gazette suggests that this payment in lieu of taxes would potentially generate between $675,000 and $725,000 annually for our schools.

Regardless of whether this payment option is even feasible given the financial situation at UMass or whether or not the Marks Meadow building could be used for something else, I still think that closing Marks Meadow is the fiscally responsible decision, is in line with our enrollment projections, and fits within the current long-term strategic plan for our elementary schools. Yes, this does mean a huge change for our entire community (especially since the closure of Marks Meadow will result in many children being redistricted to other elementary schools--not just the students currently at Marks Meadow), but it is a necessary change. Especially since the Finance Committee has stated the possibility of using reserve funds "to implement bona fide plans to move toward models of service provision that would provide net savings to the town in the future while providing acceptable levels of service. Since we feel that moving in this direction is extremely important for the long-term sustainability of services, if reserves are to be used, we encourage targeted use of reserves to aid the process of transitioning to new models that reasonable analysis indicates have a likelihood of providing future cost savings, but might have some costs associated with a transition, or require a reasonable and finite time to implement." Thus, if the School Committee votes tonight to close Marks Meadow, the Finance Committe might recommend the use of reserve funds to cover some of the budget deficit for our elementary schools this year. Without that, we are facing, minimally, a net $1.2 million less for our schools (based on the Tier 2 budget passed by the School Committee).

Ultimately, though, I think the worst thing for our schools and for our town would be for the School Committee to delay this vote beyond tonight. Whether Marks Meadow is to be closed or whether it will remain open and the budget shortfall will have to be made up somewhere else, our students, our teachers, and our communities need to have some resolution of this issue so everyone can move on to planning how to implement the results of the decision. No matter which way it goes. Come out tonight and see what happens...and urge the School Committee to be decisive tonight.

$7,000

The amount of additional money that will now be in reserve CPA funds following the defeat of Part K of Article 18; proposed repairs to the slate roof of the North Congregational Church. Most of the arguments against this item seemed to stem either from the lack of separation of church and state this might represent as well as a general discomfort with using public CPA funds for maintenance on what is a privately-held building.

This was the only part of Article 18 (total appropriation $344,800) to be defeated. Other hotly-debated parts were E, J, and L. Part E (West Cemetery Landscape Improvement for $20,000) passed by a standing vote of 128 to 51. Part J (Civil War Tablets--Phase I: Conservation, Engineering & Design, Installation and Interpretation) passed on a tally vote of 91 to 84. Part L (Historic Signs (Writers' Walk--Dickinson, Frost, Francis, etc) passed on a tally vote of 95 to 70. (Note the decrease in numbers of Town Meeting members voting/present as the night wore on...and on...and on.)

I am new to Town Meeting but it was clear to me that Historic Preservation was taking a fair bit of heat for using a lot of CPA money this year. Even though both the Community Preservation Act Committee and the Historical Commission produced very thorough information on all projects (I thought). There were, however, a number of minority reports (Barbaret and Streeter as well as Morales and O'Connor) which clearly opened the discussion. In comparison, Articles 19 and 20, both dealing with Open Space passed with no problem (total appropriation for both articles was $225,000 and also authorizes the raising of an additional $380,000 to fund the purchase of land/conservation restriction on the Olendzki property on Station Road).

A good discussion about this article got going on one of the TM lists and I wondered if the only other alternative to spending the money on these projects was to bank it instead, and indeed that did seem to be the case. There were, for example, no additional proposals that would have gone unfunded this year due to the funding of any of the parts of Article 18. There was a lot of discussion about the relatively little CPA money being spent this year on affordable housing, but according to the CPAC, there were no proposals brought forth this year that were not funded. In addition, there is already an available budget for affordable housing of $350,077.

In the end, I voted in support of all parts of Article 18 because I was not presented with convincing arguments about what the money would better be used for (no one offered a concrete reason why more should be put in reserve rather than less except maybe to cover "proposals that come up later" but I thought they could be brought forward the following year). I also saw no real barriers to the much-needed economic development in any of these proposals, which is another reason I would have voted against something. In fact, Article 20 worried me more on that aspect but no one seemed at all concerned about that Article. A member next to me, while ripping out her tally vote, said, "I don't know why we are paying for this while our schools are in such bad shape." I responded, "I do agree with you that I wish our schools had more money but this money cannot go toward the schools so I can't think of it that way." It was a long night of hard-fought victories for the CPAC.

Two For $380,000

The apparent total cost to purchase the two portable classrooms that are not scheduled for use next year (or in subsequent years) for grade-specific classroom use. On October 15, 2007, the Select Board voted 4-0 (with one abstention) to support Article 5 on that fall's Town Meeting Warrant. This Article called for the appropriation of $195,000 (in addition to the $80,000 previously appropriated) for the purchase of two modular (aka portable) classrooms for Marks Meadow. Voting in support of this Article were current SB members Brewer and Weiss.

At the October 17, 2007 School Committee meeting, the Marks Meadow School Improvement Plan was presented and included the mention of these two proposed modular classrooms. At the time, SC member Churchill "noted that the School Committee needs to look hard at whether we need to add two or four modular classrooms, understanding that there is a financial component to be considered." Fortunately, the School Committee did NOT decide to follow up on that suggestion and recommend the purchase of four modular classrooms!

Town Meeting passed Article 5 by 2/3 vote on November 5, 2007:
ARTICLE 5. Capital – Mark’s Meadow Portable Classrooms (Joint Capital Planning Committee) VOTED by a declared two-thirds that the sum of $195,000 be and hereby is appropriated to pay costs of purchasing portable classrooms for the use of the School Department and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto, which amount shall be expended in addition to the $80,000 previously appropriated for this purpose, and that to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, is hereby authorized to borrow said amount under and pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 7(9) of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue bonds or notes of the Town therefor. Action taken on 11/5/07.

On May 12, 2008, Town Meeting further appropriated another $105,000 toward the purchase of these modular classrooms as brought forth in Article 17, Part C:
C. VOTED by a declared two-thirds to amend the actions taken under Article 5 of the Special Town Meeting held on November 5, 2007, and appropriate $105,000 to pay costs of purchasing portable classrooms for the use of the School Department and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto, which amount shall be expended in addition to the $195,000 previously appropriated for this purpose, and to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, is hereby authorized to borrow said amount under and pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 7(9) of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue bonds or notes of the Town therefore. Action taken 5/19/2008.

This brought the total cost to purchase the modular classrooms to $380,000 appropriated by Town Meeting. These modular classrooms were delivered in October 2008 but are not currently used as grade-specific classrooms.

Under the current projections, Marks Meadow will use only 9 of the available 10 classrooms in the main building for grade-specific classes next year. If Marks Meadow is closed following the 2009-2010 school year, apparently, there will still be no need to use these two modular classrooms on another school campus. According to the Elementary Reorganization materials discussed in recent forums, "We project that we will be able to contain all our classrooms within Crocker Farm, Fort River and Wildwood Schools without use of the modulars. If it is decided that the modulars must be moved, the net Year 1 savings will be reduced to approximately $392,000. Consideration may also be given to selling the modulars." I just hope they are able to recoup a significant portion of this $380,000 if they do sell the modulars. I further hope that more attention will be paid to enrollment projections by our decision-makers in the future.