|
League, LEF team up for budget
forum – January 29, 2004
By Jane Whitehead, Correspondent
/ Lexington Minuteman
More than 100 people braved freezing winds and the creeping
chill of the Clarke auditorium to grapple with "The Dynamics
of Public School Funding," at an open forum organized
jointly by the Lexington Education Foundation (LEF) and the
League of Women Voters (LWV), last Thursday.
Moderator Susan Solomon introduced the forum as one of a
series of events sponsored by the non-partisan LWV, "to
educate citizens and keep them informed about issues
pertinent to the town."
"With tonight's collaborative event," said LEF president
Leslie Nicholson, "we're reaching out to try to create a
conversation about education and education funding in
Lexington with a wider audience." The evening's four
panelists, she acknowledged, faced the tough assignment of
"distilling a sea of information into a shot glass of
facts."
Fiscal policy specialist Peter Enrich poured the first
double shot, outlining allowable sources of funding for
schools and other municipal services under Massachusetts
law, and sketching the town's consensus-building budget
process. The primary revenue source, said Enrich, is the
residential and commercial/industrial property tax,
augmented by taxes on hotel and motel accommodation,
jet-fuel and motor vehicles, and by non-tax revenue such as
fees and fines. State aid accounts for around 7 percent,
largely via Chapter 70 funding for the schools.
The effect of the adoption of Proposition 2 1/2 in 1980,
said Enrich, has been to cap the one major piece of
municipal revenue that has growth capacity by limiting the
annual increase in the town's total property tax levy to 2.5
percent over the preceding year. In fact, said Enrich, the
tax levy does grow by more than 2.5 percent annually, thanks
to substantial new growth, which is excluded from
Proposition 2 1/2. Citizens can also authorize larger
increases by voting for overrides.
This system, said Enrich, a former selectman and current
Town Meeting member, has "created the presumption that you
can live within 2.5 percent, and if you don't, you have to
go to the voters and you've done something which is
extraordinary and wrong."
As Deborah Brown, chairman of the Appropriation Committee,
which advises on the operating budget, demonstrated in her
presentation, this presumption is untenable in an era of
escalating costs, rising school enrollment, shrinking state
aid and plummeting investment income.
The annual increase in medical benefits costs alone for the
town's 1,300-plus employees, said Brown, "eats up the
additional tax we can levy under Prop. 2 1/2. Yet health
benefits make up just one of our budget drivers." Other
areas of rising costs are energy, special education
expenses, unfunded state education mandates, and repairs and
maintenance for school and municipal buildings.
Brown explained that the operating budget mainly covers
school and municipal wages and expenses. The outlook for
fiscal 2005, she said, is a budget shortfall of $4.5 to $5
million, assuming maintenance of current services and
staffing levels, and a zero percent cost-of-living wage
increase for town employees.
The gap represents the difference between cost increases of
around 5 percent over fiscal '04, and an anticipated growth
in revenue of only 1.6 percent.
"This number, of course, grows larger if you contemplate
restoring any of the services lost in last spring's
override," said Brown, who sees no easy solution to the
current economic crunch.
"My job is to tell you whether the shot glass is chipped or
in need of replacement," said Capital Expenditures Committee
member John Rosenberg, introducing his survey of the town's
capital assets and the current state of capital funding and
projects. On the public school front, the town is
responsible for over 900,000 square feet of buildings,
including LHS, two middle schools, six elementary schools,
school administration offices, vehicles and computer
technology.
To keep these essential assets operating, Rosenberg
explained, Lexington uses two approaches to capital
spending: "cash capital" funds set aside from operating
revenues to cover items costing between $25,000 and $1
million, and debt-exclusion overrides to cover "big ticket"
items like the $32 million voted in mid-2002 to replace
Harrington and Fiske schools. As in the case of the
operating budget, needs outstrip resources, with about
$480,000 cash capital on hand to meet $2.7 million of
capital requests for tax levy funds this year.
Lexington has made "remarkable progress" in recent years in
updating its infrastructure, said Rosenberg. But he called
the unfinished agenda "daunting," with the four remaining
unimproved elementary schools representing either "an
$80-million unfunded replacement project," or a
"multi-million-dollar unfunded annual liability for
essential renovation."
Capital expenses, while they can be postponed, do not go
away, said Rosenberg, warning that it is neither painless
nor prudent to avoid confronting and funding real capital
needs.
After this battering with unpalatable financial realities,
the audience appreciated School Committee member Scott
Burson's invitation to take a seventh inning stretch. Then
the relentless litany of soaring educational costs
continued: $930,000 extra to fund contractual obligations;
utilities up by $750,000; transportation costs up by
$100,000, and so on.
In formulating a budget, said Burson, the School Committee's
main concern had been to "maintain a dynamic level service,"
and to halt the perceived deterioration over the last two
years in the quality of education provided by LPS.
Burson took the audience on a whistle-stop tour through
three school budget scenarios for fiscal '05. The first
represented Superintendent Joanne Benton's recommendations
for containing increases at the 2.5 percent level, at a
total cost of $64,357,140. Benton herself describes this on
the LPS Web site as a "compliant" budget, not one in which
she takes pride. The School Committee, said Burson, felt
similarly uncomfortable, and asked Benton to identify
possible restorations of key cuts.
Benton proposed two further budgets, featuring two tiers of
"critical restorations," the second of which was endorsed by
the School Committee at a meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 20. This
budget calls for a total of $67,399,929, a 7.3-percent
increase over last year, and while, according to Burson, it
adds nothing new, it "brings us close to where we were
before the failure of [last year's] override."
Questions from the audience heralded themes that will
undoubtedly prove important throughout the budget process.
What protection is available for elders on fixed incomes?
(Enrich mentioned four schemes, including the town's
volunteer program, that allows seniors to earn a reduction
of up to $500 on their property tax, and the state-sponsored
Property Tax Circuit Breaker Program, which, with relatively
generous asset and income thresholds, provides "meaningful
relief for many households in Lexington"). How do the
increases in town employees' salaries compare with those in
the private sector? What can be done to mitigate the
"glaring escalation" in benefits? Should Lexington seek to
increase its commercial tax base?
The true measure of a community, suggested both Enrich and
Brown, is determined not only by its services and assets,
but by the quality of its political and civic discourse.
Hard times all too easily breed hard words and hard
feelings, and as the town enters a challenging period of
negotiation, Brown concluded by saying: "I feel very
strongly that how we, as a community, navigate this crisis -
the tone of our rhetoric and dialogue, as well as the
process we follow and how we arrive at decisions - these
things will ultimately have a greater long-term impact on
our community than the adoption of one budget or another."
A full recording of the presentations and the question and
answer session will air on Comcast Channel 10 at 9 p.m. on
Thursday, Jan 29 and at that time slot on a number of
successive Thursdays.
Two video copies of the forum will be available for
borrowing from Cary Library.
|
|