www.rutlandherald.com www.rutlandherald.com
Springfield school taxes to go down
Susan Smallheer | February 25, 2017
Staff writer
SPRINGFIELD — Springfield school taxes will be going down 2.1 cents this year if voters approve a $29 million spending plan.
The projected residential tax rate for schools will drop from the current $1.51 per $100 of assessed value to $1.49, said Superintendent Zachary McLaughlin.
McLaughlin told members of the Springfield School Board this week the nonresidential, statewide tax rate, which does not change from town to town, would be going up slightly, from $1.39 to $1.41.
The nonresidential rate applies to all property except for a home and two acres.
People who pay their property taxes based on their income should see a drop from $2.99 to $2.79, or two cents less, McLaughlin said.
He said that many Springfield households qualify for a state program to pay their property taxes based on their income. Those households have income ranging from $47,000 to $109,000.
McLaughlin said 817 households have income over $109,000 and pay their property taxes as billed; 692 households pay according to income levels.
A total of 866 households have income less than $47,000, and thus are eligible for what’s called “the super-circuit-breaker,” where combined property taxes of school and town rests between two to five percent, McLaughlin said.
In Springfield, 63 percent of all taxable property is residential, and 37 percent is nonresidential.
McLaughlin and School Finance Director Steve Hier presented what they called the “Fab Four,” or four scenarios to illustrate the tax impact on different taxpayers, with varying levels of income and property value.
“Larry the Landlord,” Hier said, has an income of $100,000 and owns three apartment buildings in Springfield worth $500,000. His taxes will go up $98, he said.
“Nancy the Nurse,” with income of $115,000 and a home worth $280,000 is not eligible for any of the state’s income sensitivity programs, but because the tax rate is down two cents, will see a $59 decrease in her school taxes.
“Betsey the Bookkeeper,” Heir said, makes $50,000, lives in a $150,000 home, and will save $100 because of the two-cent decrease in the tax rate, because she does qualify for income sensitivity help.
Overall, the state’s income sensitivity saves her $845, McLaughlin said, “a huge benefit.”
For “Ralph the Retiree,” who lives on $20,000 in Social Security in a $100,000 home — the state’s “super-circuit-breaker” in which all of Ralph’s town and school property taxes are capped because of his relative low income — taxes, ironically, will go up $27, because he is getting a cost-of living increase. But his property taxes are low to begin with, McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin said that in the past five years school property taxes have gone up, stabilized and are now decreasing. Last year, he said, the tax rate went down 3.5 cents.
In 2012, school taxes went up eight cents, and in 2013, they went up two cents.
Voters will decide the fate of the school budget through Australian ballot voting on March 7, Town Meeting Day.
imaging how much it would go down,if they tightened up the budget
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's hire slaves to teach our kids in the street, the way they did in Rome! Who needs standards, buildings or teachers?
ReplyDeletethere's a lot of room in the budget to cut some cost's without losing a lot of staff,there is some position that the district doesn't need,that should be cut,but people like you don't see that,it's just easier to keep spending money and not worrying about trying to fix the money problem
DeleteOn a more serious note, the supervisor at town meeting last year bragged about how laying off 34 staff had saved me 6% on my tax bill-- $84.
ReplyDeleteI'm more than willing to pay 84 bucks more to have a school system that offers four foreign languages, advanced placement courses and paras to deal with the school failure high risk students. Why should I want Springfield's kids to grow up to be peasants?
so Chuck,you don't have a problem with the school budget going up $1,102,451.00 in 1 year,i sure do.
DeleteHow much does it raise your taxes, 12:41?
Deletewho cares how much it raise's taxes,whats gonna happen if the budget goes up $1 million a year forever are you gonna support it
DeleteHow much do you want your children to do better in life than you have? I want everybody's children to have that sort of chance. If you don't share that attitude, which children do you think should be screwed over?
DeleteThe best elementary school in America is multi-racial; its kids can pick their college-- and most of them do. It costs $25,000 a year, the last I looked-- and here in Springfield we are only about $8,000 per student short of that. If Springfield schools could do what the Laboratory School of the University of Chicago does, you can bet I would love to see my taxes raised $5,000. How about you?
Chuck- these taxes would be assessed to your blighted Springfield property, not your permanent residence in Chester. FYI.
Delete9:40, you don't spend much time in Chester or in Springfield, do you?
DeleteI expect my property taxes on my home to double or triple when the assessors come through this year. And I will feel that I am doing my patriotic duty by paying them-- especially when I know that a part of them is providing Springfield kids with an education. How about you?
"Patriots pay taxes."
Chuck- wrong again... The assessors have actually come through many of my Springfield properties. It still doesn't make me comfortable contributing as much as I do to the uncontrolled growth of local budgets combined with your socialist / communist dream.
DeleteCost of doing business. I don't feel too sorry for the investor class around here. I worked hard for my home, and even harder fixing it up, only to have your kind rent to drug addicts and let the buildings rot! I think you SHOULD pay more to compensate the rest of us who are losing money, and sleep, beacause of you.
DeleteWell 3/27, it looks as though we have different values. Too bad that you consider giving kids a better chance at life is "socialism." But maybe it is....
Delete9:40, if you are not a resident of the neighborhood covered by the Park/Union Alliance, you should start your own association in your neighborhood. They have been very effective at getting the town to improve conditions for them.
DeleteWell, this is one of the more bizarre conversations I've been in on this blog, and I've seen some weird ones! Apparently, we have a wealthy liberal investor, who makes money off of the working class and doesn't care if taxes go up, vs. a wealthy conservative investor, who makes money off of the working class, but doesn't want to pay. So, I guess you guys will continue to make money, and fight, while everyone else pays, is that it? I think I've just discovered what's wrong with America; elitist ideologues milking us for all we're worth! Sound about right?
Delete9:20, I'm liberal, yes, but not wealthy, making only $12,000 a year more than I need to live on, which, I think, ought to apply to everybody's income. I believe that everybody in my situation-- or of a higher income-- should pay higher taxes, because the money could be put to use to provide much better education as well as many other improvements, such as guaranteed affordable and accessible health care for all; good roads, bridges and air travel; a strong safety net for those who cannot work or have lost their jobs; and fully renovated public schools.
DeleteThis is what the richest woman in England wrote in 2010:
"The fact remains that the first time I ever met my recently retired accountant, he put it to me point-blank: would I organise my money around my life, or my life around my money? If the latter, it was time to relocate to Ireland, Monaco, or possibly Belize.
"I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
"A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scamper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism."
--J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series
Would you agree that this should apply for Americans as well, or are you happy with Springfield sharing in our country's status as an international follower in every sphere of governmental responsibility except military spending and incarceration rates?
I don't have a problem with public schools, and taxes here are lower than EVERY other place I've ever lived, by a lot! What I don't like is the idea that simply shoveling money at education, or more "low income" rentals are the solution. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS? It's all a part of an ever-downward spiral that I hold both sides responsible for. These left/right ideological battles, both here and around the country, are the problem. We seem to be forced to make a choice between two equally extreme positions, neither one of which actually works, while the architects of those positions rake in the cash. Taxing the wealthy may SOUND good, but if you hit them hard enough, they WILL pack up and leave. By the same token, the wealthy need to understand that the rest of us are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to make them wealthier. Overly simplistic arguments about taxes vs. spending miss the point; it's what you GET for the money that matters. What are we getting here? Schools that are expensive and suck, with rental housing that's expensive and sucks! Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS SOMETHING FOR NOTHING!
DeleteOne way to "tighten up the budget" would be the elimination of local school boards. "One-on-one" teaching is beneficial; "one-on-one" administration is just a money-sucking bureaucracy. The real problem with our education system is that the bar for employment is continuously being raised; a high school diploma used to be the minimum standard, now it's a BA or BS. What we'll end up with is what I saw in Florida; they have the best-educated janitors and burger-flippers in America! Carrot on a stick, anyone? If the workforce demands a certain type and level of education, we need to do it K-12.
ReplyDeleteChildren are best off being Home Schooled. What do you think about that ?
DeleteIf you have the money, the time, and the education, then go ahead. Most people don't. Lack of social interaction is also a problem. My observation of home schooled children is that they appear withdrawn and frightened in social situations involving more than just a few people. They're your kids, if you want them to grow up stupid and paranoid, it's up to you.
DeleteIf I had home schooled, it would have ended in homcide/suicide. Some people are too dangerous to be entrusted with home schooling their children.
Deleteand we hear: crickets. . .
DeleteThe existence of local school boards has little to do with the cost of education, it has a lot to do with the flavor of the school. The loss of a local school can have a disasterous impact on the community .
DeleteReally? The cost of education wouldn't be less if we didn't have to pay multiple redundant school boards across the state? The county I grew up in had twice the population of the entire state of Vermont, with only ONE school board! There's nothing "folksy" about wasting money. What you call "flavor" is provincialism at its worst!
DeleteA high school diploma to teach high school? LOL - yeah maybe in 1910. A bachelors degree has been a fairly minimum standard for many many many years - as it should be.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should try a few remedial reading courses; I never suggested that high school graduates should teach high school. What I AM suggesting is that raising the level of education K-12 to meet the needs of a changing economy would be preferrable to spending four more years, and A TON OF MONEY just to be competitive; especially if that degree gets you nothing more than being first in line for a crappy job!
Deletea friend always said,all you need to teach a 3rd grade class is a 4th grade education,just need to stay 1 step ahead of the student's
DeleteEliminate junior and senior years. Ask any freshman if they know everything, bingo there you go. With their smartphones they can do anything.
Delete