Part of the answer is in your efforts to increase revenue and reduce
cost, although some of the so-called revenue is actually, in some
cases, our tax money coming back to us and called revenue ($247,544 in
state revenue and sub grants for example). I guess if it is allowed
under Act 68 to reduce our tax rate, we will take it.
I would like to see the gross spending on education shown as boldly as
the per pupil spending. Gross spending per pupil or whatever you would
like to call it would mean total proposed budget divided by total
equalized pupils, before any so-called revenue (this year's:
$2,102,142/140 = $15,015.30). A Vermont resident student at UVM,
including dorm, is about $17,000 per year.
Anyway, by extension, based on the money we send as property taxpayers
to Montpelier from the town of Warren, $9.4 million last year, we are
spending about $45,000 per student as property taxpayers due to the
effects of Act 60/68. It certainly removes a lot of money from our
small economy that could be used to improve many infrastructure needs
and those individuals who are in need. Also, we have uncollected
delinquent taxes in Warren of about $500K, so there is borrowing going
on by the town to make up the shortfall. Some of those delinquent
taxpayers will never be able to catch up and many are income sensitized
already.
To date, the town of Warren has sent $113 million from our economy to
Montpelier to the Education Fund since the inception of Act 60/68 and
have received only $35 million back to fund our K-12 education needs.
So this system just doesn't work for Warren or really any other town
either.
Jim Parker
Warren
{loadnavigation}
