Recently passed legislation for school districts and SAUs requires all municipalities to vote to either approve or reject a school and/or a SAU central office tax cap for their communities.
The school district local tax cap and school administrative unit fixed cap question on the ballot for towns and wards with an annual school district meeting shall read:
“Shall the [name of municipality] limit property tax growth for [name(s) of school district(s)] under RSA 32:5-i? If adopted for a two-year period: (1) the local property tax levy may not grow beyond the prior year’s amount, adjusted for inflation and new construction; (2) SAU central office spending may not exceed 6 percent of total school district appropriations; and (3) bonded capital costs are excluded from both limits. These caps apply only to administrative operations of the SAU central office and do not affect classroom instruction, school-based services, or other municipal expenditures. These limits may be overridden as provided in RSA 32:5-i. Adoption requires a three-fifths (3/5) majority vote.”
So what can go wrong indiscriminately limiting how much a school district’s expenses are allowed to increase? What happens when health care costs increase disproportionally, or if the state reduces funding, or if more special needs students enroll, or when utility costs far exceed the cost of inflation? What happens when these costs are more than the rate of inflation?
What do you cut? Educational instruction, extracurricular activities, school supplies?
If not a tax cap, then what?
In municipalities with an annual meeting, the entire community has the opportunity to approve or disapprove spending. Municipalities with annual meetings are hearing from community members that attend these meetings and vote. Spending isn’t left to the elected body, but is determined by you and your neighbors.
What about municipalities that don’t have an annual meeting, where you don’t have a direct vote on spending. Where will those who are elected to represent you determine how much will be spent?
If you don’t like how they spend your money, vote them out. Elect those who better represent you. When less than 25% of a community votes in a municipal election, apathy by voters shouldn’t replace the responsibility of elected boards to represent the communities sentiments.
Tax caps are the lazy person’s solution. A response that replaces one problem with others. Look no farther than Franklin and Manchester, to see how well their tax caps have served them. Look at unanticipated but required obligations that lead to increases in costs.
Concord doesn’t need a tax cap. What we need are elected officials who have better hearing and will listen to you. Elected officials who will make better choices when spending your money.
If you don’t like the uniqueness of Concord’s School District with no direct accountability to you and no oversight by the city council, change it. If you want more accountability from your city council, consider a move from the city manager form of government to a strong mayor, who oversees the day to day operations of our city and is directly responsible to those who elected them — you.
On two occasions, I voted against the city’s budget. Not because funding for safety services, roads and recreation opportunities weren’t important, but because of the inclusion of millions of dollars for a project that wasn’t needed.
As a city councilor, my mantra was “I’ll never forget it’s your money that is being spent.” Instead of a tax cap, show up and vote for those who won’t forget whose money they are spending.
Allan Herschlag lives in Concord.