For years now as Massachusetts cities and towns have been struggling to balance their budgets, the mantra of anti-tax activists has been “find more savings.”
This call reflects a misinformed belief that deep, structural budget deficits can be closed by eliminating inefficiencies is like thinking one can pay rent by pulling pocket change from between couch cushions.
The “find more savings” mantra circumvents an important conversation that needs to happen in our communities about what services we want our government to provide and how we expect to pay for them.
Some towns have had that conversation and passed Proposition 2 ½ overrides to raise more revenues. Others, like Shirley, have simply cut.
Massachusetts residents need to ask themselves what services they want and what’s the best way to pay for them.
I taught in that town for years. How many overrides were passed for trash but not for schools? How many times did Shirley reject the notion of regionalizing with Ayer and Lunenberg, an option that would provide better opportunity for the town’s students? How long did it take to build that much-needed middle school? How many times did I hear town denizens get up at town meetings and school committee meetings bemoaning the loss of the town’s “small town feel,” or asserting that Shirley was “special.”
<
p>I left teaching in Shirley after two overrides failed for the schools but passed for trash pickup. The year I left virtually half, HALF, the faculty at the middle school left. The school was a sinking ship. I took a job in a comparable town making $12,000 more per year. I don’t blame families for sending their children to the Parker school and other area schools. Rational people can look at the data, look at the leadership, and realize that their children are better off in other schools. Many did, still do, and will continue to do so.
<
p>Shirley has no one to blame but itself. It’s anachronistic approach to progress and modernity has resulted in a fatal shortsightedness that has rendered the town moribund. If nothing else, let Shirley’s example be an instructional lesson to other communities on what not to do.
Why is it that some towns succeed and others fail. Article in the Globe recently highlights an overide situation in neighboring Pepperell. Yet, some towns have passed overides that have not in the past such as Rockland. It will only get worse. 15% local aid cut on the way. While the Gov. has made Federal stimulus available it won’t be enough. Circuit breaker not fully funded. Will Chapter 70 remain whole? Not a pleasant time to be a local official.
Those towns with effective leadership a) saw the writing on the wall years ago, b) communicated to their constituents, and c) began having difficult discussions before it was too late.
<
p>Moving forward, I see Chapter 70 eroding much like Chapter 71 (for regions) and circuit breaker. The states unwillingness to fund Chapter 71 and circuit breaker resulted in over a $1.5 million shortfall in our school budget. We just voted a new budget in my regional district on Tuesday night, paring over $2 million off the original–and that was with major union concessions including lost raises, frozen steps, and interim lanes where necessary. Otherwise, we were looking at laying off over 100 teachers and staff, cutting all middle school and elementary art, PE, and music. It was ugly. With effective leadership, however, we were able to pull this thing out of the toilet. Next year, however, we’ll not likely be this lucky. The teachers have nothing left to give and cannot be expected to subsidize the teaching of the town’s students indefinitely. That responsibility belongs with parents and taxpayers.
You are correct. Next year the taxpayers in the cities and towns will probably have to step it up. Prop 2 1/2 overrides will be very common. Only in those forward thinking communities will they pass. It is either “we are all in this together” or “every man (and women) for him or her self”. It will NOT be good times.
We’ve worked with a lot of towns doing Prop. 2 1/2 overrides. In our experience, towns win when elected officials and town managers open up their books and educate their voters on what the town’s costs are and how those costs are met.
People are more willing to support overrides when the conversation stays focused on the question of what kind of town do people want. Why do we value our schools. What kind of education do we want our children to have?
Transparency is key to this because it takes the conversation away from, “what are THOSE officials doing with OUR money?”
BTW, ONE Massachusetts member Colleen Corona provides trainings for override activists and town officials seeking to pass overrides. Look us up on the web if you’re interested.
For municipal budgets training:
First off I am not trying to Defend any individual City or Town I am merely pointing out that there may appear to be other factors that need to be considered in the discussion.
<
p>I have been looking at this issue for some time 2 years now for my PHD work in Economics and their are a few facts that seem to go unseen when looking at the situation in City and towns that goes beyond the fact that some departments get a higher priority then others and this is unjustifiable even if you consider my points
<
p>First a couple of facts
<
p>2007 median income is $50,302 with over 50% making this amount or less
<
p>2009 tax bill average is $3028.95 about 6% of income
<
p>Cost of Living index as 117.9 which is above the national average of 100*
<
p>*National average is set at 100 to judge one community from another and one region from another and allow a constant for dollar value
<
p>So Shirley is a bit over the nation as an average
<
p>Now compare these numbers to a city like Woburn that is not in a fiscal melt down
<
p>2007 Median income is $67,424 again over 50% of the population is making this or less
<
p>2009 Tax bill average is $3645.00 about 5% of income
<
p>Cost of living index is 128.7 which again is above the national average of 100 and certainly above Shirley’s
<
p>my point has been and their is a growing amount of data that is beginning to suggest a pattern
<
p>Shirley residents have less disposable income and pay a higher % of property tax if they were to pay a comparable tax bill in their community to say a Woburn that has reasonably survived the cuts you would see them paying 7-8% of gross income this is not sustainable in this economy.
<
p>Let me also ad that Shirley is not unique in this model I have begun to see again a pattern of City and towns of similar size and make up to Shirley facing the same issues. Please do not miss understand the residents choosing trash over schools is obviously an issue of a communities priorities and is in my opinion indefensible yet if the issue were the trash fee were $1.00 per thousand and the schools were $5.00 per thousand the $5.00 may have been beyond the tipping point for the income make up of the town versus the $1.00
<
p>This is a growing problem in Massachusetts and one of in my opinion real flaws with relying on Property taxes to provide all goods and services with in a community. Some solutions may be to reexamine the formulas for state aid to city and towns may be one alternative but a broader look maybe to pay for education on a state level and to standardize across the state items like benefits that Municipal employees receive as part of their employment.
<
p>If you would like to see some of the data you should check out
<
p>http://www.city-data.com/city/…
<
p>City Data is a great clearinghouse for info on community data and profiles also the US Census is a wonderful reservoir of local profiles and population data
<
p>http://www.census.gov/
<
p>Shirley’s majority may be at the breaking point where disposable income is not sufficient to support all local services. So when comparing one community to another it is important to remember not all are alike each in fact is quite unique.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion