This Spring 2005 snapshot has been retained
both for historical comparison
and because it's still somewhat relevant.
Another override proposal passed at the polls in spring 2008 as question #2 by a vote of 2831 to 2268 (only 41 ballots left this question blank).
Funding of my local public schools particularly concerns me, especially now as funding has been in nontrivial trouble for several years. The override proposal for school year 2002-03 failed at the polls by a very small number of votes, three more years passed, then Ipswich citizens again rejected an override proposal at the polls. The information presented here is less detailed than before simply because I haven't been as deeply involved in the minutiae as I once was. You can either read linearly or skip to particular sections. (I'm also concerned about the requirement to pass the MCAS to graduate from high school.)
Ipswich schools funding, which was fine through most of the 90's, has been very tight for several years. Ipswich education can't afford to just continue as before (unless someone knows how to squeeze blood from a stone:-).
Government budgeting in Massachusetts is done on a July-June "fiscal year." This works well for public schools as an entire school year fits into a single budget year. At the time of the second override proposal, the previous school year was FY04, the current year was FY05, and the debate was about how to fund Ipswich schools for FY06.
A few years back Ipswich schools were hit with a one-two punch by factors beyond the town. First, aid from the state was reduced. Then the economic recession hit. For both reasons the schools didn't get as much money as if trends of earlier years had simply been extrapolated.
Ipswich schools have survived recent years on a combination of parent gifts, private fund raising (mainly for the sports programs), emergency Feoffees funds, and belt tightening. But all these are nearing exhaustion. As the economic downturn wanes, funding of Ipswich schools needs to not only return to normal but also provide for future years.
The belt tightening our schools have done in the past few years has been truly astounding, including at least a couple of budget freezes and near elimination of the professional development that keeps our teachers fresh. And there's been nary a peep of complaint about tight money. Our schools have joined the rest of the town in living through lean times. But what's possible for a few years won't work as a permanent state of affairs. Now that lean times are passing, our schools need to let their belt back out.
Unfortunately just to "stay even" requires more money each year. Inflation means that "increases" of only a few percent really aren't increases at all. The single biggest budget buster item is health insurance. Increases in those premiums alone will eat up well over 1% of the total budget for FY06. And restrictions on the Feoffees funds mean that those funds can no longer be used to help defray transportation costs. Health insurance and transportation alone will eat up over half the funds available under the Prop 2½ levy limit.
There were two estimates of the increase in taxes in Ipswich for FY06: 3.5% and 5.6%. The lower number was conservative (or as some would say realistic) and has been used by our Finance Committee, while the higher number was optimistic about the economy. The schools originally used the 5.6% number to come up with a budget that while not cushy did not involve significant cuts. The 3.5% number does not keep up with the schools fixed costs and is in reality a decrease from past years. It's unavoidable that a schools budget using only the 3.5% number and without an override will involve cuts.
Arguments about how much state aid to Ipswich schools is "fair" may be interesting and ultimately sensible, but aren't practical in the short term. The Chapter 70 formula by which state aid is allocated, which originated in the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1993, has been further bent by state legislators from urban areas. Ipswich is viewed as a "suburban" community that can afford to pay more for education (particularly because its taxpayer contribution to education was higher than surrounding towns in 1993 - which it no longer is). The net result currently is that the amount Ipswich gets per student is $500 (or more) less than surrounding towns. Although our state representatives have been working on this problem for several years, Ipswich doesn't have the legislative clout to force another view. So it's a virtual certainty we won't see any increase in state aid in a reasonable timeframe. Reconfiguring allocation across all DOE Chapter 70 funding will not happen until at the earliest FY 2007 and when there is enough money available to make it a "win-win" situation politically. Whether or not it's entirely fair, funding of Ipswich schools in the short term is a local matter to be decided by the town of Ipswich.
Local property taxes in Ipswich have risen significantly over what they were several years ago mainly because of recent projects (new school building, new library extension, remodeled town hall) and the Open Space bond. At the same time, some property prices have soared because of easier access to growing Boston (for example long-time residents of Jeffrey's Neck are being priced out of their homes). As a result, some of our residents on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet. (Even though they're higher than they were several years ago, local property taxes in Ipswich are not as high as in many surrounding communities.) Ipswich town government is very aware of the voices of stretched voters and is very skeptical about all spending.
The Little Neck area of Ipswich is a 345 year old land trust which benefits our schools. The trust was initiated by the will of William Paine with the words "unto the free scoole of Ipswitch the little neck of land at Ipswitch knowne as Jeferry's neck, the which is to be and remaine to the benefitt of the said scoole ... for ever as I have formerly intended and therefore for the sayd land not to be sould nor wasted." Thus it would seem that, unlike most towns, the Ipswich public schools have another source of funding besides local and state taxes. The trust's terms have been clarified and updated several times with the cooperation of the state legislature and courts, and are in the process of being updated again for the first time in many decades.
This trust is often called "The Feoffees of the Grammar School" or just "The Feoffees." Feoffee is an antique word that would probably be rendered as "trustee" today. Although originally the Feoffees had a separate existence and managed many things besides the land trust, they now look after only the Little Neck trust. Nowadays "the Little Neck trust" and "the Feoffees of the Grammar School" mean the same thing.
Regular property taxes are collected on Little Neck properties (the trust does not exempt the properties from paying taxes). The Feoffees have disallowed most year-round residence (in the past probably more because of inadequate waste disposal; an explicit limit may be included in the latest update of the trust terms). As a result Little Neck sends very few students to Ipswich public schools. It's arguable that the property tax income from homes without students benefits Ipswich schools more than any Feoffees contribution.
Through the years cash contributions from the Feoffees (but not the property taxes) have been earmarked for a specific purpose and have been "off book" so they were not used to cut local taxes. This tradition was enshrined in earlier drafts of the update of the trust which specified that its monies be used for "enhancement". Whether or not such a restriction will be explicitly included in the language of the final update of the trust is an open question. With the agreement of the Feoffees, Feoffees monies have sometimes been folded into the regular school budget during an "emergency"; in fact that's partly how Ipswich schools have survived the past few years as well as they have. But such use is of somewhat dubious legality, certainly frowned on, and most definitely cannot be counted on. Any school district budget item that's "moved to Feoffees" and not moved back the very next year is effectively being set up for sudden discontinuance in the future.
Over the years Feoffees contributions have varied widely: several grants to individual projects, a single grant to the whole school district, small amounts, very small amounts, and in some cases no contribution at all or a contribution directly to the town's General Fund. The total amounts of these Feoffees contributions were consistently very small for many decades, raising the question of what rents should be charged for Little Neck residency. (Here's a listing of the exact amounts of yearly Feoffee contributions.) There are conflicting views on what level of rents for Little Neck residency benefits the Town of Ipswich the most. Considering only the interests of schoolchildren, the rents should be as high as possible to maximize trust income. Yet considering the broader interests of the whole town, rents shouldn't be so high that only rich people can live in Ipswich.
The Feoffees started both to raise property rents to current market values and to make regular contributions to the school district in the mid nineties. Even so the initial contributions were small, typically $25,000 or $50,000, because the trust had to cover its large capital expenditures (for example for a wharf or dock shared by the Little Neck residents). In recent years when the Feoffees weren't limited by their capital expenditures, they contributed more than $250,000 per year to the school district. Although this amount may seem large, it's small in comparison to the total school budget and quite a bit smaller than the schools funding shortfall. Even if it wasn't restricted to "enhancement" items, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to solve Ipswich schools funding problems.
In summary yes the Little Neck land trust is helping with funding Ipswich schools. But there are restrictions on how the monies are spent. And even if there were no restrictions, the amount wouldn't meet the need.
Strenuous efforts to collect "market rate" rents, combined with skyrocketing waterfront property values, resulted in a Little Neck renters revolt or strike. As a result, lawyers were involved and the feoffees were unable to contribute any money at all to Ipswich schools during the school year 2007-2008.
Ipswich Schools have been very short of funds since the economic downturn began. With almost no publicity other than the previous override proposal, they've tightened their belt quite a bit.
Ipswich Schools have used a policy of keeping cuts away from direct student contact - or to put it bluntly not cutting classroom teachers until last. But after several years of this kind of trimming, there's not much else left, as you can see from this list of the major items that have been cut or reduced from 2002 to 2005:
Elementary librarian - Cut- Director of Special Education - Reduced
Custodial Position High/Middle School - Cut- Athletic Funding - Reduced
Performing Arts Center Director - CutExtended Learning Program (ELP) - Cut- Technology - Dramatically Reduced
2 Elementary Teachers - Cut- Professional Development - Reduced
- Transportation - Reduced
Technology Supplies and Instructional Materials- Building Maintenance and Equipment - Reduced
Speech and Language Elementary Teaching Assistant - CutTextbooks - Cut- Summer Programs - Reduced
- English as a Second Language (ESL) Program - Reduced
Instructional Teaching Assistant - Cut
Recent further belt tightening is not shown by this old list.
As a parent volunteer I've had difficulties in scrounging up "routine" supplies like rubber bands, manila folders, blank CDs, and even cellophane tape. It's obvious to me there's no waste where supplies are concerned. And the most frequent gating factor for an activity is where to find an adult with time to provide supervision. Teachers and staff are stretched very thin.
Personnel costs (salaries, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc.) are approximately 85% of our schools budget. To retain both personnel and academic programs and also to provide all mandated services means all cuts have to come out of a small portion (10%-15%) of the total school budget. This is difficult.
For quite a number of years Ipswich schools have had a tradition of whenever cuts were necessary protecting direct student contact (i.e. classroom teachers) while eliminating supervisory, administrative and coordinator resources. When cuts are necessary, this is a very sensible policy; but it can't continue forever. Teachers deprived of all fallback, coordination, resources, and rejuvenation will eventually collapse. The schools look good on the surface but are in fact hollow. What's necessary in lean times does not point the direction to take all the time.
Ipswich schools funding might have continued as it was without being a dire problem if state aid hadn't been reduced for several years, even though state aid pays only about 15% of the cost of our schools with the lion's share of about 85% generated locally. Further, it seems that Ipswich doesn't currently get its "fair share" of state aid due to a quirk in the state's Chapter 70 formula which heavily penalizes Ipswich for funding its schools well decades ago. The good part of shifting the tax burden from the state to the town is there's even more local control of what money is collected and how it's spent. But the bad part is such a shift also changes the kind of taxation: less income tax and sales tax, and more property tax. Retirees who live on small fixed incomes and don't buy much largely escape income tax and sales tax, but are often hit significantly by property tax. One terminology calls this a shift from "progressive" taxation to "regressive" taxation. In Massachusetts shifting the tax burden from state to local brings the side effect of shifting it onto individuals who are not part of the economy.
The shortage of funds is because there really is a problem rather than because those entrusted to manage the situation were careless. To blame those closest to the problem smacks of "shoot the messenger."
A comparison of overall ("integrated") per pupil expenditure as calculated by the state Department of Education --which is a measure of the true cost of education in different school districts-- shows that the costs of Ipswich schools are almost at the bottom of those in surrounding communities. Ipswich schools provide education at a relatively low cost. (This comparison table ends with 2002-03 simply because later costs for surrounding communities were not yet easily available.)
Per Pupil Expenditure Comparison
(highest at top, lowest at bottom)Cost Per Pupil Over All Grades
(combined Regular and Special Education)Town 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Manchester
(Manchester/Essex)$8,479 $9,233 $10,513 Essex
(Manchester/Essex)$8,479 $9,233 $10,513 Newburyport $8,357 $8,754 $9,276 Andover $7,935 $8,220 $9,252 Middleton
(Masconomet secondary)$7,650 $7,916 $8,646 Boxford
(Masconomet secondary)$7,075 $7,955 $8,644 Swampscott $7,315 $7,601 $8,430 Topsfield
(Masconomet secondary)$6,860 $7,932 $8,317 Rockport $7,898 $8,467 $8,290 Hamilton
(Hamilton/Wenham)$7,657 $7,721 $8,028 Wenham
(Hamilton/Wenham)$7,657 $7,721 $8,028 Marblehead $7,259 $8,094 $7,853 Lynnfield $7,137 $7,338 $7,662 North Andover $6,389 $7,062 $7,584 Gloucester $7,304 $7,759 $7,420 Ipswich $6,813 $6,817 $7,314 Newbury
(Triton)$6,767 $6,592 $6,863 Rowley
(Triton)$6,767 $6,592 $6,863 Salisbury
(Triton)$6,767 $6,592 $6,863 Georgetown $6,474 $6,548 $6,800 (Almost all numbers in the above table are simply copied from the state DOE accounting reports. Numbers for Boxford, Middleton, and Topsfield however had to be calculated becase each town has its own elementary schools while they share the Masconomet secondary school.)
The following tables are for FY04 because complete numbers for FY05 were not yet easily available when this web page was created. A more detailed comparison of local property taxes is also available if you want to know more than this sketch tells.
Property tax "rates" have generally dropped in the past few years to compensate for property valuations going up. Recent Ipswich property tax bills reflect several projects (school building, library extension, town hall remodelling) as well as expenditures to date under the Open Space bond, all of which were begun in good economic times and may not reflect Ipswich's current fiscal priorities.
A comparison of local property tax rates in surrounding towns shows that the tax rate in Ipswich is currently quite low. (The comparison of average tax bills in the next table may be more meaningful since the tax rate bounces around quite a bit as properties are reassessed and as communities grow.)
Local Property Tax Rate Comparison
(highest rate at top, lowest at bottom)Town Tax Rate Newburyport 1.429% Hamilton 1.248% Gloucester (*) 1.232% Boxford 1.227% Topsfield 1.220% Georgetown 1.210% Rowley 1.136% Danvers (*) 1.092% Essex 1.019% Wenham 0.975% Ipswich 0.954% Rockport 0.878% Newbury 0.862%
(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for commercial. The residential tax rate is shown.
A comparison of average local property tax bills in surrounding towns shows that Ipswich taxes are in the lower middle of the range. Since these numbers are for FY04, parcel valuations --including the average residential parcel valuation for Ipswich-- differ from current valuations. A more detailed comparison of local property taxes is also available if you want to know more than this sketch tells.
Average Local Residential Property Tax Bill Comparison
(highest bill at top, lowest at bottom)Town Average Residential
Parcel ValuationAverage Single
Family Tax BillBoxford $513,225 $6,297 Wenham $537,529 $6,230 Topsfield $487,405 $5,946 Hamilton $442,646 $5,524 Newburyport $291,493 $4,165 Essex $400,496 $4,081 Rockport $459,570 $4,035 Ipswich $418,780 $3,995 Gloucester (*) $408,780 $3,928 Danvers (*) $352,031 $3,844 Rowley $331,076 $3,761 Georgetown $354,411 $3,456 Newbury $389,594 $3,358
(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for commercial.
The override proposal described below did not pass; this is archived historical information.
A later override
—just for the schools (not partially for the town)—
passed in Spring 2008.
Both our School Committee and our Board of Selectmen proposed overrides to begin in FY06. The two were combined into a single override proposal so voters would face only one decision. The proposal was passed by the attendees at Annual Town Meeting in spring 2005, and was weighed by all Ipswich voters at the polls Tuesday a week later (April 12, 2005). The override proposal failed at the polls. The override proposal would have been a "general" (continuing) Prop 2½ override not just a one-year override.
The schools' portion of the override proposal was for a total of $975,000, and the town's portion of the override propoal was for a total of $693,604. The combined proposal would have raised the tax bill for an average Ipswich household for the year by $313.47 (the schools' portion of the override accounts for about $175.50 of this). Here's a very brief breakdown of the schools' portion of the override proposal (scroll down a little further for a more detailed breakdown):
$234,000 Restoration of teaching/supports positions $100,000 Professional Development $194,500 Technology, textbooks and instructional materials $99,500 Sub varsity sports, summer programs and student activities $347,000 Capital projects and purchases $975,000 TOTAL SCHOOLS PORTION
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the schools' portion of the override proposal:
1 FullTime Elementary Teacher $40,000 Reinstated 1 FullTimeEquivalent Teacher MiddleSchool/HighSchool $40,000 Fills Need PartTime Fine Arts Coordinator $24,000 Reinstated PartTime Accompanist $20,000 Retained PartTime Technician (all schools) $25,000 Fills need Professional Development $100,000 Reinstated Textbooks $55,000 Reinstated Technology Equipment/Maintenance $100,000 Capital Purchase Library Books $12,000 Reinstated After School Programs (MiddleSchool and Elementary) $15,500 Reinstated Summer Programs (Elementary) $6,000 Reinstated Instructional Supplies $42,500 Reinstated Sub-Varsity Athletics $78,000 Reinstated Librarian (Winthrop & Doyon) $40,000 Reinstated PartTime Speech & Language TeachingAssistant
/Math TeachingAssistant (Elementary)$15,000 Reinstated Instructional TeachingAssistant (Doyon) $15,000 Fills Need Doyon Windows $183,000 Replacement Tiger IV Bus (large bus) $58,000 Capital Purchase SPED Bus (18 passenger) $45,000 Capital Purchase Maintenance Equipment (floor scrubbers,
snow removal, vacuum cleaners, power washers)$61,000 Capital Purchase TOTAL SCHOOLS PORTION $975,000
Our school committee is quite confident that if this override had passed, the schools wouldn't need another override for at least three years. (Perhaps during that time the state Chapter 70 formula by which it apportions its contributions to local school districts can be revised so that Ipswich does not get so little state aid.)
The override proposal described above did not pass; this is archived historical information.
A later override
—just for the schools (not partially for the town)—
passed in Spring 2008.
Taxes that seem typical to family-aged adults may seem outrageous to senior citizens living on fixed incomes, partly because the value of a dollar has changed slowly but inexorably over time. A dollar's worth of goods in 1962 --near the time senior citizens paid their first tax bill-- now costs $5.31. Because a dollar isn't what it used to be, property valuations and taxes have risen steeply. Tax bills in current dollars can place an unfair burden on someone whose retirement income is based on their old wage dollars that were stretched much less.
Senior citizens should call the Assessor's office at Town Hall to investigate the 41C (pronounced forty-one see) local property tax reduction to see if they can mitigate the unfairness in their specific case. (Senior citizens should also investigate the "circuit breaker" state income tax deduction.) These reductions may allow senior citizens to vote for better support for Ipswich schools without themselves becoming the target of an outrageously high tax burden.
Notes were added and broken hyperlinks fixed May 2008.
The original material was not edited.
|
Location: N42 40.86' W070 50.35'
(North America> USA> Massachusetts> Boston> North Shore> Ipswich) Time: UTC-5 (USA Eastern Time Zone) (UTC-4 summertime --"daylight savings time") Email comments to Chuck Kollars |
|
All content on this Personal Website
(including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works),
unless otherwise noted,
are available to anyone for re-use
(reproduction, modification, derivation, distribution, etc.)
for any non-commercial
purpose under a
Creative Commons License.
|
