bizSearchVoters to weigh in on Proposition 2½ tax increases on July 25
After months of negotiations and votes of Town Meeting and the Selectmen, the School Department faces a final hurdle for its Proposition 2½ override and other proposed tax increases: the July 25 special election. Officials hope to save 21 teaching positions, complete building repairs, and purchase learning materials.
Voters will be asked to approve an override, which would raise property taxes above the annual tax cap indefinitely. Voters will also consider three separate "debt exclusions," which would raise property taxes for five years to fund specific projects.
In April, Town Meeting voters approved a town-wide budget with drastic cuts after a particularly tumultuous budget cycle that left leaders struggling to fill a multimillion dollar gap. Knowing the cuts were coming, the School Committee proposed the tax increases, which officials say are much-needed to keep the school system afloat, but won't solve all of its funding problems.
"The big O," as officials have called the override, would generate $780,000 in the first year and allow the School Department to fund the 21 teaching positions eliminated in June.
The money would only be used to rehire the 21 teachers, though Superintendent Dr. Barry Rabinovitch noted that, after receiving their layoff notices, three teachers have already accepted jobs elsewhere. Administrative positions, including an assistant principal at Hammond Elementary and a guidance counselor at Wareham High, will not be filled.
Recognizing that tax increases are going to be difficult for residents to swallow, Rabinovitch urged voters to "consider their vote very carefully."
"All of us who are eligible to vote in this election were educated, and someone paid for that education," he said. "We have a responsibility to educate our young people."
The override will cost the taxpayer approximately 23 cents per $1,000 valuation of a home. For example, a home valued at $100,000 would be charged an additional $23 per year for the override.
Without the override, average class sizes will increase from 23 to 28 students, school officials say.
"It's not optimum, neither for the advanced child nor for the child who has challenges with their learning," Rabinovitch said. "Our teachers are professionals, and they will do their best, but to say that it won't have an effect would be lying."
After the first year, the money generated from the override would go into the town's general coffers. It would not be earmarked for the School Department. At that time, town officials would have to determine how to proceed.
Rabinovitch noted: "If we don't vote 'yes,' then there's no chance in getting it this year or any other year."
The three debt exclusions would fund textbooks and technology ($341,000), pay for repairs to the Wareham High School roof ($110,000), and pay for a "feasibility study" for renovations to Minot Forest Elementary ($575,000).
The textbooks purchased would be classroom sets that support the district's new federal- and state-mandated math and English curriculum. The district did not ask for full sets so that the students could take the books home.
"We only asked for what we absolutely needed," Rabinovitch said. "We were trying to be modest in our requests."
For that reason, the district only requested the funding necessary to repair the high school gym roof, which has become a leaking hazard, even causing basketball games to get "rained out," Rabinovitch said. The entire roof will eventually need replacing.
The feasibility study is a necessary step the district must complete in order to get state reimbursement for renovations at Minot Forest Elementary. If the study isn't funded, the school is bumped off the state's waiting list, which it has been on for years.
The state will reimburse at least 60% of the cost of the project. After the study is complete, the district will have a set of plans so it can price construction costs.
"All of the mechanical [systems], the electricity, heating ... are original and need to be replaced," Rabinovitch said.
A similar Wareham Middle School project was completed in the last decade through a debt exclusion. The project was paid off in 2010, Rabinovitch said.
The price to fund all three of the debt exclusions would be 5 cents per $1,000 of a home's value for each of the five years.
The price to fund the override and all three of the debt exclusions would be, per year, 28 cents per $1,000 of a home's value, or $28 per $100,000 of a home's value. After five years, the extra cost for the debt exclusions would be eliminated.
A majority of the town's Finance Committee is in support of the override and debt exclusions.
"All these requirements are weighing very heavily on the School Department," FinCom Chair Donna Bronk said in reference to unfunded curriculum changes and other mandates trickling down from the state.
She added: "As far as the debt exclusions, we have no choice. We have to fix the roof. We have to get current materials."
But, Bronk said, the town needs to work together to find a permanent solution to its budget problems.
Noting that she is in-favor of the override, the FinCom members who were against it were against it because "they believe the town should start living within its means, and you know what, I agree with them too," she said.
David Trudell, who stressed that he was speaking as an "individual who happens to be on the FinCom," elaborated.
"The issue is simple. If we vote for [a] Proposition 2½ [override], then [the schools] get the money for this year, but then next year the money drops into the general fund. ... We're going to be right back where we are right now, looking for another override," Trudell explained. "Why would I vote to increase my taxes on an annual basis? ... This is not solving anything."
As for the debt exclusions, Trudell noted that paying for much-needed items throughout the town has been an ongoing issue.
"The town's not making progress," he said, noting that the Capital Planning Committee, which is charged with prioritizing and planning for big-ticket purchases such as vehicles and building repairs, has been "starved. They can't get money for serious issues. ... We've been trying to get an ambulance for four years."
Trudell stressed: "It's time for us to decide to live within our budget."
Bronk noted: "It's a terrible situation."
But it's a situation she hopes will unite the town.
"I believe that the town can use this crisis as an opportunity, and the School Department and the town can come together. ... We're all in this together and we have to make sacrifices," she said. "If our schools go down, our property values go down. It's happening already and it will continue."
The polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25. Visit WarehamVillageSoup.com for results.
I will weigh in right now with a NO, NO and Triple NO! We have Natuical Police riding Jet Skis, Multiple Fire Departments, Multiple Water Depatments, Mulitple Librarys, Duplication of services and equipment everywhere, Bloated salaries, Under qualified people holding positions, Positions created for certain people. When does it end and where does the correction of this disaster begin? I say right here and now! It's time to send a message to all involved and at every level,NO! This is not about the children at all. Its about mismangement and the lack of stones to fix the problems. It's about telling the teachers that would not have been here without stimulus money, thank you very much and have a nice day. It's about telling the teachers unions NO and get their butts to teaching or they will be gone too. It's time for our leaders to lead and simply asking for more money at every turn is not leading. Drastic changes are needed in our Town. Vote no on everything until things change, unless you do they never will.
spherebreaker, I agree with your vote of no, no, and no. I disagree with your statement about the jet skis. They did not cost the town a penny for the purchase of them. The jet skis will assist our police dept. with activities on the water, both criminal and accidental happenings.
The 21 teaching positions, complete building repairs, and purchase learning materials might have been reduced if the Supt.'s salary was not so outrageous and we eliminate those middle management positions. The teacher should always be the first priority! Blame the parents who do not care enough to attend Town Meeting or vote at the polls. We have a decreasing student enrollment and there should be a DECREASE in the school budget and expenses! Our cost per student must be far above other towns. People need to wake up and put pressure on the Supt. to get his act together and save our teacher by cutting middle management.
So let's be honest. The jet skis did not cost the town a penny but every time I fill mine up it costs me around $150. Someone has to pay for the fuel. It takes me no time at all to go through a tank of gas.
You say our cost per student "must" be far above other towns. Why don't you take a look at other town's spending per student. You haven't got a clue. We are at bare minimum. Vote no because you think the administrators get paid too much but who suffers? The students. Wareham has the second highest unemployment rate on the southcoast according to today's Globe. Only Brockton is higher. Low graduation rates and poor quality education leads to unemployment which leads to higher crime rates. Think big and don't be vindictive. Educate the kids of Wareham just like you were educated when you went to school.
Increasing expenses per student does not guarantee improvements in student performance. Last year they added lead instructors. That is a classic management move for a government entity, reorganize because the people responsible aren't doing their job. Education has become a sacred cow and an albatross. True the socio-economic status of the town impacts the school system but that isn't cured by giving the school department more money. We need to push back on the educational mandates from the state and national governments.
I'm voting no.
Someone is running a full page ad in Wareham Week's 7/19 print edition urging voters to vote yes on these overrides.
The ad does not indicate who paid for it, which I thought was a requirement for political advertising. Silly me.
Anyway, the headline implies that investing in education equals investing in your property values. Hah!
Either the ad was paid for by an interested party with a few extra bucks to spare, or the school paid for it.
If the latter is true, God help us all.
Even more of a reason to vote NO on all items. We have already invested in education via taxes and look at the results.
I agree, Sphere.
But don't underestimate the power of a certain bloc.
There's no added cost to registered voters who rent property here. If they want what is best for their kids, they'll vote to pass these overrides.
Same mindset for Wareham's Section 8 tenants. The proposed tax hike won't affect them at all.
Taxpayers with children already in the system would probably prefer to pay for overrides rather than chip in for transportation.
Contrary to the usual maxim that there's no way an override can happen in Wareham, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it passes.
I will be voting NO. If I were a landlord and this went through, I would have no choice but to pass this increase on to the tenants at this time. Money is just too tight right now.
The problem that I have with the 21 teacher layoffs is that there were some excellent, younger teachers who were laid off simply because they were at the bottom of the Totem Pole, while there were older, higher paid teachers, who were kept on despite their poor job performance. Unfortunately these days, this is the way these things work. No longer are you kept because you're good. Your kept because of your Seniority. This leaves a bad impression on young, energetic teachers who are paid lower wages, and who actually care about their work. Once you lose them, it's tough to get them back.
I'm sure that there are statistics that are kept on each teacher, with a ratio of who's passing their classes and who are not. I'm sure there's also an average grade for each classroom full of students that they teach. These statistics should be used as part of their job evaluation and if they're not making the grade, they should be ousted. Maybe if we kept the brightest of the teachers, education would improve?
Right now I'm on the fence about which way my vote will go. If it were to go toward keeping the brightest, hardest working teachers who care, it would be a definite "Yes".
Can't seem to get past the "$575k" feasibility study! The teacher salary for one year and four years in to the "town's general coffers"! A Fincom chairwoman who can't make up her mind! Rabinovitch / School Committee probably paying for the ad! All for nothing more than a very expensive band aid!
Cobra, I don't have children grade school so am not familiar with the teaching staff. I'm not sure how teachers are evaluated but if you're basing it on MCAS scores (and I don't know that you are) then this is not an accurate measure of a teacher's performance.
A vast number of students in the schools are dealing with instability and social disadvantages that impede learning. It's simply a fact that when people are living day to day focused on getting their basic human needs met (survival) they are not engaging the part of their brain required for learning.
In this case, blaming teachers is probably not fair. Throwing more money at education, as it currently is, probably won't make a difference. State mandates, in many cases, are unachievable goals so that needs to be re-evaluated. I think the problem is bigger than the town can cope with. Maybe we need a taskforce to look at the WHOLE picture rather than slapping on BandAids.
How many committees does it take to screw in a light bulb? We have too many committees. We need to stop talking about and just do it. Talking about it just "kicks the can down the road" to the next administrator, the next super, the next board. That's the mentality that got the town into alot but not all of the financial mess its in.
Karen, I understand where your coming from and agree with a lot of what you said. However, it is well known within the schools as to which teachers are good and which teachers are just cashing the paychecks and going through the motions. These are things you simply will not see in the newspapers.
I'm lucky, I happen to have a daughter who's in the top 10 percent of her class and excells in the High School. I also have another daughter who's on the verge of attending the High School and had also done well. I've had the pleasure to meet all of their teachers over the years and have spoken to many other parents in regards to these teachers. Some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately, when the axe falls, it's not the bad teachers that are laid off. It's the teachers that are lowest on the pole, the ones with less seniority.
I don't want to see anyone lose their job. However, like anything in life, you have to produce to keep your job. If you're constantly producing students who do poorly, why should you have your job?
I'm not blaming the teachers for anything. I'm simply stating that when layoffs are taking place, the teacher's records should come into play as to who should be laid off and who should be kept on. That axe shouldn't fall on the teachers who are actually doing their jobs to the fullest.
That's why my decision is hard. If I vote for the override, I have no control on who gets rehired, who continues to be laid off, what gets fixed, what doesn't get fixed, etc.... If we knew EXACTLY how this money was going to be spent, it would be a lot easier to vote "Yes". However, with the mis-management of money all over town, it's hard to support anything like this.