The Amherst Plan

See Bryan Harvey's article in the April 06, 2007 Amherst Bulletin.

Excerpt:
"Voters will have a chance to take another step on May 1, when the override component of a plan proposed by the Finance Committee appears on the ballot. This time, an override is more than a stopgap. It's the down payment - good for at least three years - on a commitment to control spending and reduce tax pressures by growing the tax base."

More:
http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/36401/

Read the Finance Committee "Override recommendations" report of March 5, 2007.

Excerpt:
"The multi-year approach is important, because it will provide a stable environment in which the many officials and citizens involved can use their time productively working on solutions to our fundamental financial problems rather than having to spend an inordinate amount of time each year struggling to piece together yet another short-term budget solution."

Read the full text here:
http://www.amherstma.gov/budget/March_5_2007_Override_Recommendations_to...

When I first heard discussion of a potential override, my first reaction was rather mixed - didn't we just have an override? Can't we just make some careful (and not too painful) spending cuts?

But as I learned more about the three-year override plan endorsed by the town manager, Finance Committee and School Committee, I became convinced that this plan is Amherst's best hope for not only avoiding extremely detrimental cuts to services (the loss of firefighters and police officers, the loss of teachers, closing of War Memorial Pool), but also for developing a long-term plan for financial stability (including allowing time for aggressive lobbying for state programs, hiring an economic development position, and exploring ways of broadening the tax base).

I plan to vote "Yes" on May 1, and I hope others will join me in supporting the override and planning for the long-term financial stability of Amherst.

Catherine Sanderson
Amherst

Source: Letters, The Amherst Bulletin, April 13, 2007

I'm an eleven-year Amherst resident with no children in the schools, but a firm belief in the importance of a strong public education system. Rapidly rising costs for health care and fuel, combined with the constraints of Proposition 2½, make it impossible for the town to continue providing the educational and other municipal services that we all place such a high value on, unless we take action to break the cycle of service cuts. I strongly support the Amherst Plan as a way of bringing fiscal stability to the town both now and in the future.

Proposition 2 1/2 is outdated and can not meet Amherst's needs in a time of skyrocketing health care, education and heating costs. The Amherst Plan is an opportunity to stop the ongoing degradation of our schools and services, rethink the way our town operates and revitalize our town's economic health. Please join me in voting "YES" for the Amherst Plan on May 1st.

See what Gerry Weiss has to say here in the Amherst Bulletin:

http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/38456/

Excerpt:
"There isn't a plan that will be pain-free. Deeply diminished schools would hurt many. We are fortunate to live in a town with the services we have, which is why our homes have increased in value so much over the years. The price we pay for this value and these services is in the form of property taxes. The three-year plan is a positive and sound plan. It begins with passing the override on May 1."

Letter To the Amherst Bulletin:

The Amherst School Committee and the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee have endorsed the three-year financial plan called "The Amherst Plan." We ask that you also endorse this plan and vote "yes" on May 1.

Your "yes" vote means there will be: 1) major budget cuts this year, but 3 percent budgets instead of 1 percent budgets, 2) fixed budgets caps for three years to control spending and provide budget predictability and stability, 3) commitment to aggressively pursue additional revenue sources and appropriate economic growth, 4) rebuilding of the town's Reserves for emergencies and future financial security, 5) a $2.5 million override this year to support the three-year plan and no additional overrides for at least three years.

Massachusetts and federal income tax cuts have caused drastic cuts in school funding. Simultaneously, the costs of running schools and educating all students have increased dramatically, and many are beyond our control. Health insurance costs for school employees have increased almost $2.5 million in the past three years. Charter schools take almost $500,000 from Amherst's state funding. State and federal governments continuously add expensive unfunded mandates and regulations. The inevitable result has been deeper cuts every year in the parts of school budgets spent on education.

School budgets are mainly people. Budget cuts mean cutting people, cutting classes these people teach, cutting programs these people provide, cutting services students need, and increasing class sizes. To cut over $2 million from the 2006-07 school budgets, the schools had to cut 22.5 teaching positions, 22 paraprofessionals, clerical staff, programs, books, and supplies.

For next year's budget, even with the override, the schools will still cut almost $1.5 million: two administrators, 17.5 teachers, other staff positions, physical education for juniors and seniors, the middle school pool, etc.

If the override vote fails, school budgets will drop to the 1 percent increase budgets. The schools will lose nine additional teachers and over $175,000 of other cuts. Every high school student will be required to enroll in two study halls, more regional class sizes will climb above 25 or 30, more elementary class sizes will increase to 25 or 26, and books and supplies will be cut further.

The quality and future of Amherst schools depends on your vote on May 1.

Elaine Brighty
Amherst

Source: Letters, The Amherst Bulletin, April 20, 2007

To the Bulletin:

Think about this: If Proposition 2-1/2 had been Proposition 3 instead, overrides would never have been necessary and we wouldn't be looking at voting for one this May 1.

When Prop 2-1/2 was passed in 1980, whose brilliant idea was it to arbitrarily make the tax levy limit 2.5 percent instead of something more reasonably tied to the cost of living? Why not 3 percent, which is what inflation has averaged for the past 15 years

Instead we have this crazy system of having to make large adjustments every so often called "overrides" to correct for the stupidity of Prop 2-1/2. Because these overrides are such large numbers, everyone gets understandably all worked up about them. But in reality, these adjustments should have been spread out over many years. Who could complain about a 3 percent per year increase? But people are naturally concerned about a one-year increase that approaches 10 percent.

Adding to this problem is that we get used to times when state aid to the town is good and overrides do not occur very often. But today we are faced with two overrides in three years, because state aid to towns has dropped since 2002. According to the Finance Committee, "The difference between state aid received during the entire period from 2003 through 2007 and the amount we would have received if the 2002 amount had been adjusted for inflation is $14,907,228."

This is a Massachusetts problem, not an Amherst problem. The problem is not that Amherst is spending too much, it's that Massachusetts government has been idiotic in recent years.

While property taxes have increased, income taxes have been cut. It is no coincidence that reduced state aid occurred during the same time period that the Massachusetts state income tax rate was cut from 5.85 percent to 5.3 percent, passing along the burden to the towns. Those tax cuts went right into the pockets of the property owners, who have to pay higher property taxes. Federal income taxes were also cut. Households in the middle fifth of the income range ($56,200) saw an average tax cut of $1,180 in 2004.

Tax increases get all the attention, tax decreases don't. Surely the average property owner has seen at least as much of an income tax decrease as they have seen a property tax increases due to overrides. But those cuts are invisible because when you do your income tax return, it doesn't tell you how much you would have paid had the rates not been cut.

Proposition 2-1/2 is a terrible law, but it's a fact that makes overrides both normal and necessary.

Richard Hood
Amherst

Source: Letters, The Amherst Bulletin, April 20, 2007

To the Bulletin:

When I first heard about a multi-year override, I dismissed it. So I sympathize with the skeptics. But as I began to understand what the Finance Committee was talking about, I changed my mind.

This is not just another override, as in 1991 and 2004, to fix the next year's problem. It's a three-year plan, which is funded by the override. On May 1, as we vote on the override, we vote on the plan.

Yes, we need to make cuts and control spending; that's one of three crucial parts of the plan. We can differ on whether or not we've been spending too much, or on what. In fact, both the Town and the schools have been forced to make cuts year after year. That's because state aid - our major revenue source to supplement property taxes - has been radically reduced at the same time as costs we don't control, especially for health insurance and utility costs, have skyrocketed.

But we must do more to regain control of our financial situation. We need to vigorously pursue economic growth and new revenues, the second part of the plan. Passing the override would provide both the funds and the time to make that possible.

The proposed $2.5 million override, combined with a modest 3 percent budget increase for FY08 and budget caps of about 5.5 percent for the next two years to maintain FY08-level services, will not require another override for three years. Any success in our efforts to secure new, long-term revenue extends that plan, beyond three years.

The 3 percent budget increase allowed by the override still leaves long lists of services reduced or eliminated. But it's a lot better than the 1 percent, without the override. Not many of us would want to live with that reality for very long.

Town Manager Larry Shaffer, who has strongly endorsed the three-year plan, points out that, if the $2.5 million override should fail on May 1, a smaller one could be scheduled and a few things voted back in. Quite true - for this year. To be followed almost certainly by another, bigger, override next year.

A smaller override is yet another one-year fix. We've had those. What we need is a plan, this plan.

Let's, please, vote Yes on May 1.

Eva Schiffer
Amherst

Source: Letters, The Amherst Bulletin, April 20, 2007

Personally, I am in favor of the plan because:

- It is a *plan* and that’s something this town has not had in a long time;

- It sets appropriate spending caps, that still require belt-tightening;

- It gives our town financial predictability for the next 3 years (let’s let our school administrators be able to focus on the schools for a bit, rather than the annual fiscal firedrill);

- It focuses on economic development (including immediately hiring an Economic Development Director)

- Honestly, our state and federal taxes have been cut and our property taxes are capped at 2.5% increases while the cost of the town’s services are going up 4-6%. Our schools and town services are just getting killed by this formula. (go and recalculate your 2006 state taxes at the old 5.85% rate and see the difference from what you paid)

"No more overrides." Sounds good, doesn't it? It has the same kind of ad populem appeal as “No new taxes” or capping property tax increases at 2.5%.

Or those Nigerian bank scams.

Amherst is in this lousy financial position because fixed costs are rising at a rate higher than the rate at which property taxes can increase under Proposition 2 ½. And our aid from the State is considerably lower than it had been at the beginning of this decade, one of the repercussions of reducing the State income tax rate. Costs beyond our control are higher, while revenues beyond our control are lower. It is that simple. Running our community is more expensive this year than it was last year, and next year is worse. Something's gotta give.

More:
http://www.inamherst.com/2007/04/vote_yes_on_may_1st.html

Overrides tend to be highly charged and emotional. "No more overrides!" shout the opponents, yet we've only passed one override since 1994. "Focus on core functions!" they say, while our school and town managers waste six months a year wrestling with uncertain resources instead of focusing on teaching, public safety and potholes. "Cut administrators!" they holler, when administrators are only 3 percent of our school staff and being cut further.

We can keep chasing our tails and shouting at each other, or we can take a deep breath, accept the reality that our financial picture doesn't add up, and adopt a real plan to fix things: the Finance Committee's three-year Amherst Plan.

A "Yes" vote on Tuesday tells the town to (1) control spending through immediate budget cuts and a three-year cap on budget increases, (2) aggressively pursue new revenue sources to broaden the tax base, and (3) plan ahead, with a $2.5 million override this year and no additional overrides for at least three years.

We support the Amherst Plan, and here's why.

More
http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/39407/

To the Bulletin:

The "No More Overrides" signs I have seen popping up in both yards and vacant lots might as well read "No More Schools" or "No More Police or Firefighters" or "No More Town Services."

For four years, I sat on the Fort River School Council discussing each year's hopes for improving our kids' educational experience. That was each fall. Each spring, we tried to advise on where the cuts would be least painful - field trips, aides in the libraries and classrooms, teachers (meaning bigger classes). We went from looking for fat, to cutting to the bone and now to chopping off limbs. There is no place left to cut, folks, if we still want quality education to be a hallmark of Amherst and a legacy for our kids.

Voting against this override and the three-year plan to avoid another one is not a vote for "No More Overrides." It is a vote for a bigger override next year, because we will be in more desperate straits without this plan. Please vote to support our hard-working teachers and give our kids the best start in life we can give them. Vote "Yes" on the override.

Tom Gardner
Amherst

Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters

To the Bulletin:

Property tax increase limits of 2.5 percent would make sense if we could limit the growth of inflation, health insurance and energy costs. Or if we had a federal or state government willing to increase taxes to keep pace with the cost of living, we could keep our property taxes rising at a steady pace.

But we can't and we don't. Proposition 21/2 gave communities the option to increase our local taxes when needed. I don't want another override vote every year, so I'm voting for the three-year plan for cutting costs, increasing Amherst-like development, and increasing our property taxes.

Andra Rose
Amherst

Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters

To the Bulletin:

A few weeks ago, I had a bike accident resulting in a pelvic fracture and a trip in an ambulance.

One of the EMTs mentioned that the Amherst EMTs are, on a per-call basis, the most understaffed response team in the state. I noticed that mine was one of 74 ambulance calls that week. It was a pretty straightforward case - strap me to a back board, schlep me to the ER, no resuscitation on the way, no messy clean-up afterward - yet more than an hour after arriving at the hospital, one of the EMTs was still completing paperwork and retrieving gear.

So, by the time the ambulance and its crew were back to the "ready to roll position" in Amherst, the call took a minimum of 3.5 or 4 hours. Multiplied by 74, that means the Amherst EMTs were on the road a minimum of 259 hours that week. It would seem the network is being pushed to the limit.

Apparently the "No" voters want every system - emergency response, maintenance, school, you name it - functioning at the absolute break-down limit. And I have a suspicion that many of the same voters will shriek in protest, or maybe just sue the town, when the current budget fiasco results in something more tangible than a drop in school performance, impacting directly upon their lives.

I hope this uncharitable assessment is wrong, but I hope even more that we never have a chance to find out. Perhaps "No" voters can ignore larger class sizes and fewer courses and activities for the town's children. But if their car ever breaks an axle in an unfilled pothole, if their home is ever ablaze and the Fire Department doesn't arrive pronto, if they are once left waiting, lying in pain on an unswept roadside for an ambulance to arrive, my guess is they will rethink every single "No" vote.

John Varner
Amherst

Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters

To the Bulletin:

An override is felt most by those on limited or fixed income. These are the folks who are most affected by reduced services as well. Good schools are the backbone of a democratic society. Families who depend solely on our wonderful library system may find it difficult to buy books; youngsters who spend much of their summers at the town pools don't usually go to the Cape for two weeks or have a back yard pool to enjoy. It is not enough to say we are sorry that although these services were enjoyed by our children and parents, we can no longer afford to provide them for the young families and elders who are here now.

We need to find a way to support these services, and the override seems to us to be the most feasible solution in the short term. The three years, guaranteeing no more overrides, will give us time to find creative, alternative solutions to ongoing fiscal crises caused more by reductions from state and federal resources than by poor fiscal management.

Fran Wall
Byron Koh
Amherst

Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters

To the Bulletin:

Our family moved to Amherst years ago because of the high quality of the school system. If the override fails, 13 percent of our teacher positions will be lost; 7 percent were already lost last year. Loss of funding also adversely affects the town's essential services such as firefighters, police officers, public works and services for senior citizens.

In the 2006-07 budget, the schools cut 22.5 teaching positions, 22 aides and clerical staff, programs, books and supplies for a total of over $2 million in cuts. Even if this override passes, the school budget will be cut by $1.5 million, including two administrators, 17.5 teachers and other staff.

The state reduced the income tax from 5.8 to 5.3 percent in 2002. Because of this, Amherst lost over $14 million (adjusted for inflation) of state aid and has been struggling to deliver essential town services and a quality school system despite this loss.

Keeping essential services and supporting an excellent school system will continue to make Amherst an attractive town to live in. Families living in Amherst tend to support business in Amherst. Increased business for Amherst will lower the residential property tax base.

We will no longer have children in the school system after this year, but we believe that an excellent public school system and good town essential services, including services to senior citizens, are a sound investment in our town's future.

Gloria Chang-Wade
John S. Wade
Amherst

Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters