Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:39 AM EDT
Debate remains hot over how best to split funding for Chariho
WOOD RIVER JCT. — Like the three other regional school districts in the state, towns of the Chariho Regional School District issue payments based on their student enrollment share – yet such a funding formula has been a vociferously debated topic in recent years.
Most members of the Hopkinton Town Council claim Chariho’s per capita funding is the culprit behind why the district’s past four bond referendums have failed. It’s a reason why they refuse to support the latest, $25-million bond proposal for upgrades to the district’s Switch Road campus facilities in Richmond.
The councilors’ other explanation for rebuffing the three-part bond – which state lawmakers passed this week, and sent to the governor’s desk for approval – is that it would be a re-vote on a question that town taxpayers rejected by 47 ballots last fall.
With a glance at the district’s budget summary for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Charlestown has the lowest cut of the $49.5-million Chariho bill at $13.9 million, compared to $17.7 million for Hopkinton and $17.8 million for Richmond. That’s because Charlestown’s student enrollment percentage is 28.15 percent, lower than Hopkinton’s 35.82 percent and Richmond’s 36.03 percent.
Charlestown’s $2.5-billion tax base far outweighs those of the other two towns – $936.9 million in Richmond and $934.8 million in Hopkinton, according to the latest assessment in 2006 – making its property tax rate for residents nearly half as much compared to rates for the other district towns. For the current fiscal year, taxpayers in Charlestown paid $7.51 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation, while those in Hopkinton paid $14.19 and Richmond residents paid $14.11 per $1,000.
Towns lump their annual payments to Chariho into their municipal budgets, so each district taxpayer pays for public education through his or her property taxes. The gap in the rate between Charlestown and the other two towns has been the reason why most Hopkinton town councilors advocate for what they call “tax equalization.”
Hopkinton Councilor Sylvia K. Thompson has suggested that Chariho should become its own taxing authority. On what those plans specifically mean, Thompson said she is still developing them with others in the town, acknowledging that “we know that strictly going straight to a taxing authority like a fire district overnight is unrealistic.”
“Charlestown [taxpayers are] not going to go to the polls and vote for any changes in funding unless they’re assured that anything is fair and slow and to the benefit of the students,” she added.
Thompson said she and others hope to have a plan ready by the end of the summer, adding that other alterations to the district’s governing document, the Chariho Act, should be considered.
“A uniformed district means uniformed financing, but it means other things too,” she said. “Everything should be on the table.”
But others say tax equalization based on property values isn’t fair.
Charlestown Budget Commission Chairman Richard H. Hosp counters that Charlestown has a greater net expense to Chariho than Hopkinton and Richmond when state education aid is included in the bill. The state gives the bulk of Chariho’s education aid to the towns, which pay the majority of the district’s spending plan.
According to the state budget that lawmakers passed this week, the state is expected to dole out $6.19 million to Richmond and $6.24 million to Hopkinton – but only $2 million to Charlestown. With education aid included, Charlestown’s bill is slightly higher at $11.92 million, compared to $11.64 million for Richmond and $11.48 million for Hopkinton.
However, Thompson contends that taxpayers in Hopkinton and Richmond still pay more than those in Charlestown, citing a comparison by Hopkinton Finance Director James Lathrop. Although the average home in Charlestown is assessed at around $190,000 more than those in the other two towns, Lathrop’s June 9 memo shows the average taxpayer in Hopkinton and Richmond would pay upwards of $1,000 more in taxes toward education than a resident in Charlestown.
But Hosp said Charlestown’s median household income is lower than the other two towns based on the 2000 U.S. Census. He showed that the median for other costs facing tri-town residents, such as real estate taxes and mortgage, utilities and insurance payments, are similar. “Hopkinton pays $20 [or less than 2 percent] a month more than Charlestown, but has more than 20 percent more kids in the school system,” he wrote in a Nov. 13 comparison.
Should the district move to tax equalization based on property values, Hosp warned that Charlestown would burden more than half of Chariho costs and the other towns would split the remainder – even if state education aid is pooled together.
By dividing Chariho’s costs based on the towns’ total assessed property values, Hosp calculated that Charlestown would pay $18.39 million, or 57.5 percent of the district, based on figures from the 2005-06 fiscal year. Hopkinton and Richmond would each contribute about $6.8 million, or 21 percent.
Nonetheless, Hosp – who chairs the district’s Finance Committee that includes all three town treasurers – said Lathrop’s ideas for changing Chariho’s funding mechanism were reasonable.
“I admire the search for a different solution,” Hosp said. But he noted his displeasure with Hopkinton’s lack of support for the Switch Road campus construction bond, which included the Hopkinton council’s original request to split the bond’s cost evenly between the three towns.
“I think [the Hopkinton council’s] intransigence on the bond issue, [with] the one-third, one-third, one-third [split], doesn’t make me feel real good about compromise,” he added.
Hosp also serves on Charlestown’s reactivated Ad-hoc Withdrawal Update Committee, created in 2004 to assess leaving Chariho. The group is scheduled to have a workshop with Charlestown’s Town Council on June 30 to discuss the latest withdrawal options.
Like Hosp, Lathrop said Hopkinton needs to stop basing tax equalization proposals on tax rates. And if Chariho were to become an independent taxing authority, he asked, “Do we want to add another administration?”
Instead, Lathrop said those who want to change Chariho’s funding formula need to think outside the box.
Although he doesn’t recommend a particular method, he devised a plan that would tack a $1.37-million surcharge to Charlestown’s total contribution, based the current fiscal year’s figures. The formula: subtract the average household tax in Charlestown from the average household tax for all three towns. That difference would then be multiplied by the number of homes in Charlestown to determine the surcharge.
For the average taxpayer, Lathrop calculated that the owner of a home in Charlestown assessed at $486,667 would pay an additional $195 annually. In Richmond, a homeowner with a house assessed at $294,742 would save $162, and a Hopkinton taxpayer with a home assessed at $295,832 would save $139.
Lathrop noted that Chariho separates its schools in its spending plan. He suggested that towns could pay based on the number of students in each division.
But no matter which formula is chosen, Lathrop said Hopkinton and Richmond must makes concessions. “I think it’s up to the councils to decide,” he said.
In the dispute on Chariho’s funding, much of the debate has centered on Charlestown and Hopkinton. Richmond has been the quietest voice on tax equalization, and it is also the only town to approve the past four bonds for the district. Charlestown and Hopkinton have each rejected three.
“You have a 50-gallon gas tank and I have a 20-gallon gas tank,” Richmond Town Treasurer David L. Krugman posed, referring to Charlestown as the lower of the two to represent its student enrollment. “Do you pay the same price to fill it? You’re getting more for your money than I am if we pay the same price.”
Considering Richmond has the greatest enrollment percentage and the largest piece of the towns’ Chariho share, some in Hopkinton have questioned why Richmond councilors aren’t pursuing tax equalization. Krugman said the philosophy of towns paying per capita is logical, adding that the problem may be the distribution of state education aid.
“My personal feeling is if you have an issue with the way state aid to education is being calculated, then tackle that issue,” he said. “But as far as how to pay for the education of the students, they’re not the same thing.
“It sounds like Hopkinton is crying sour grapes because they’re not getting as much state aid per student,” Krugman added. “So they’re trying to change it by changing the way we pay for the students, instead of changing the way the money comes down.”
vgoff@thewesterlysun.com
Most members of the Hopkinton Town Council claim Chariho’s per capita funding is the culprit behind why the district’s past four bond referendums have failed. It’s a reason why they refuse to support the latest, $25-million bond proposal for upgrades to the district’s Switch Road campus facilities in Richmond.
The councilors’ other explanation for rebuffing the three-part bond – which state lawmakers passed this week, and sent to the governor’s desk for approval – is that it would be a re-vote on a question that town taxpayers rejected by 47 ballots last fall.
With a glance at the district’s budget summary for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Charlestown has the lowest cut of the $49.5-million Chariho bill at $13.9 million, compared to $17.7 million for Hopkinton and $17.8 million for Richmond. That’s because Charlestown’s student enrollment percentage is 28.15 percent, lower than Hopkinton’s 35.82 percent and Richmond’s 36.03 percent.
Charlestown’s $2.5-billion tax base far outweighs those of the other two towns – $936.9 million in Richmond and $934.8 million in Hopkinton, according to the latest assessment in 2006 – making its property tax rate for residents nearly half as much compared to rates for the other district towns. For the current fiscal year, taxpayers in Charlestown paid $7.51 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation, while those in Hopkinton paid $14.19 and Richmond residents paid $14.11 per $1,000.
Towns lump their annual payments to Chariho into their municipal budgets, so each district taxpayer pays for public education through his or her property taxes. The gap in the rate between Charlestown and the other two towns has been the reason why most Hopkinton town councilors advocate for what they call “tax equalization.”
Hopkinton Councilor Sylvia K. Thompson has suggested that Chariho should become its own taxing authority. On what those plans specifically mean, Thompson said she is still developing them with others in the town, acknowledging that “we know that strictly going straight to a taxing authority like a fire district overnight is unrealistic.”
“Charlestown [taxpayers are] not going to go to the polls and vote for any changes in funding unless they’re assured that anything is fair and slow and to the benefit of the students,” she added.
Thompson said she and others hope to have a plan ready by the end of the summer, adding that other alterations to the district’s governing document, the Chariho Act, should be considered.
“A uniformed district means uniformed financing, but it means other things too,” she said. “Everything should be on the table.”
But others say tax equalization based on property values isn’t fair.
Charlestown Budget Commission Chairman Richard H. Hosp counters that Charlestown has a greater net expense to Chariho than Hopkinton and Richmond when state education aid is included in the bill. The state gives the bulk of Chariho’s education aid to the towns, which pay the majority of the district’s spending plan.
According to the state budget that lawmakers passed this week, the state is expected to dole out $6.19 million to Richmond and $6.24 million to Hopkinton – but only $2 million to Charlestown. With education aid included, Charlestown’s bill is slightly higher at $11.92 million, compared to $11.64 million for Richmond and $11.48 million for Hopkinton.
However, Thompson contends that taxpayers in Hopkinton and Richmond still pay more than those in Charlestown, citing a comparison by Hopkinton Finance Director James Lathrop. Although the average home in Charlestown is assessed at around $190,000 more than those in the other two towns, Lathrop’s June 9 memo shows the average taxpayer in Hopkinton and Richmond would pay upwards of $1,000 more in taxes toward education than a resident in Charlestown.
But Hosp said Charlestown’s median household income is lower than the other two towns based on the 2000 U.S. Census. He showed that the median for other costs facing tri-town residents, such as real estate taxes and mortgage, utilities and insurance payments, are similar. “Hopkinton pays $20 [or less than 2 percent] a month more than Charlestown, but has more than 20 percent more kids in the school system,” he wrote in a Nov. 13 comparison.
Should the district move to tax equalization based on property values, Hosp warned that Charlestown would burden more than half of Chariho costs and the other towns would split the remainder – even if state education aid is pooled together.
By dividing Chariho’s costs based on the towns’ total assessed property values, Hosp calculated that Charlestown would pay $18.39 million, or 57.5 percent of the district, based on figures from the 2005-06 fiscal year. Hopkinton and Richmond would each contribute about $6.8 million, or 21 percent.
Nonetheless, Hosp – who chairs the district’s Finance Committee that includes all three town treasurers – said Lathrop’s ideas for changing Chariho’s funding mechanism were reasonable.
“I admire the search for a different solution,” Hosp said. But he noted his displeasure with Hopkinton’s lack of support for the Switch Road campus construction bond, which included the Hopkinton council’s original request to split the bond’s cost evenly between the three towns.
“I think [the Hopkinton council’s] intransigence on the bond issue, [with] the one-third, one-third, one-third [split], doesn’t make me feel real good about compromise,” he added.
Hosp also serves on Charlestown’s reactivated Ad-hoc Withdrawal Update Committee, created in 2004 to assess leaving Chariho. The group is scheduled to have a workshop with Charlestown’s Town Council on June 30 to discuss the latest withdrawal options.
Like Hosp, Lathrop said Hopkinton needs to stop basing tax equalization proposals on tax rates. And if Chariho were to become an independent taxing authority, he asked, “Do we want to add another administration?”
Instead, Lathrop said those who want to change Chariho’s funding formula need to think outside the box.
Although he doesn’t recommend a particular method, he devised a plan that would tack a $1.37-million surcharge to Charlestown’s total contribution, based the current fiscal year’s figures. The formula: subtract the average household tax in Charlestown from the average household tax for all three towns. That difference would then be multiplied by the number of homes in Charlestown to determine the surcharge.
For the average taxpayer, Lathrop calculated that the owner of a home in Charlestown assessed at $486,667 would pay an additional $195 annually. In Richmond, a homeowner with a house assessed at $294,742 would save $162, and a Hopkinton taxpayer with a home assessed at $295,832 would save $139.
Lathrop noted that Chariho separates its schools in its spending plan. He suggested that towns could pay based on the number of students in each division.
But no matter which formula is chosen, Lathrop said Hopkinton and Richmond must makes concessions. “I think it’s up to the councils to decide,” he said.
In the dispute on Chariho’s funding, much of the debate has centered on Charlestown and Hopkinton. Richmond has been the quietest voice on tax equalization, and it is also the only town to approve the past four bonds for the district. Charlestown and Hopkinton have each rejected three.
“You have a 50-gallon gas tank and I have a 20-gallon gas tank,” Richmond Town Treasurer David L. Krugman posed, referring to Charlestown as the lower of the two to represent its student enrollment. “Do you pay the same price to fill it? You’re getting more for your money than I am if we pay the same price.”
Considering Richmond has the greatest enrollment percentage and the largest piece of the towns’ Chariho share, some in Hopkinton have questioned why Richmond councilors aren’t pursuing tax equalization. Krugman said the philosophy of towns paying per capita is logical, adding that the problem may be the distribution of state education aid.
“My personal feeling is if you have an issue with the way state aid to education is being calculated, then tackle that issue,” he said. “But as far as how to pay for the education of the students, they’re not the same thing.
“It sounds like Hopkinton is crying sour grapes because they’re not getting as much state aid per student,” Krugman added. “So they’re trying to change it by changing the way we pay for the students, instead of changing the way the money comes down.”
vgoff@thewesterlysun.com
SugarShack wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:46 PM:
" Chariho takes $2 from Hop and Rich families and less than a $1 from Charl families. What does anyone expect to happen when there is such an immense diff? Want harmony then you need each family to pay the same. I woudn't ever be happy paying twice as much as my neighbor for the exact same thing. Anybody ever pay twice as much for a car? Or even a thousand more? Bet you weren't too happy when you found out? Who can blame Hop for being fed up with it. "
Two For One wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:58 AM:
" Glad it happened because it was pouring more money into the educational cesspool, but Charlestown rejected the bond for the elementary schools.
Also important to note that there was a proposal to cut the Chariho budget by $2,000,000 in 2005. Most of the cuts were restored because Chariho claimed they'd have to cut educational programs and sports. This was heavily reported in the Westerly Sun.
Not so heavily reported is the whole threat of program cuts was a lie. Chariho ran a surplus of more $2,800,000 in 2005.
They lied then and they are lying now. The question is whether the taxpayers will be fooled again? "
Also important to note that there was a proposal to cut the Chariho budget by $2,000,000 in 2005. Most of the cuts were restored because Chariho claimed they'd have to cut educational programs and sports. This was heavily reported in the Westerly Sun.
Not so heavily reported is the whole threat of program cuts was a lie. Chariho ran a surplus of more $2,800,000 in 2005.
They lied then and they are lying now. The question is whether the taxpayers will be fooled again? "
Charihoian wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:57 AM:
" Boils - I seem to recall a couple of bond efforts ago when Hopkinton was going to get TWO BRAND NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS and the other towns each got one. How's that for a "two-for-one special"? "
Hey Paula wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:29 PM:
" How about voters all get to vote by how much money we each give to Chariho? If my taxes to Chariho are $2500 and your taxes are $1000, then my votes is worth 2 1/2 of your votes. That seems fair since more of my money is going into the school. Why should you have an equal vote when more of the money is mine? "
paula wrote on Jun 22, 2008 1:44 PM:
" leave charlestown just the way it is. there are more children in hopkinton and richmond then charlestown. so be it "
Boils Down wrote on Jun 22, 2008 1:24 PM:
" The problem this article ignores is the impact of lower taxes on accepting more taxes. Charlestown pays so little that when it comes time to decide on new infrastructure or employee contracts, spending more is easier to approve. Hopkinton families pay more than twice that of Charlestown. When it's time to vote for us, we are already paying a fortune and the thought of increased spending is a non-starter.
Until Charlestown understands Hopkinton's situation and joins us in requiring greater accountability and fiscal restraint at Chariho, then we will continue to disagree. If Charlestown families were burdened equally to Hopkinton families then they would enter the voting booth with the same thoughts as us.
The solution is either tax equalization or Charlestown takes their huge tax base and operates their own school. Like other rich RI communities Charlestown could build their kids palatial schools. Hopkinton can't afford to keep up with Charlestown's spending habits. They get a two for one special and Hopkinton does not. "
Until Charlestown understands Hopkinton's situation and joins us in requiring greater accountability and fiscal restraint at Chariho, then we will continue to disagree. If Charlestown families were burdened equally to Hopkinton families then they would enter the voting booth with the same thoughts as us.
The solution is either tax equalization or Charlestown takes their huge tax base and operates their own school. Like other rich RI communities Charlestown could build their kids palatial schools. Hopkinton can't afford to keep up with Charlestown's spending habits. They get a two for one special and Hopkinton does not. "
 | Share your thoughts.... Our TalkBack option has been updated to improve service to our viewers. Some comments made prior to March 26 may not be available for viewing outside of the archives section. Thank you for your patience during this update. TalkBack is an opportunity for viewers to exchange comments regarding online content. Comments are moderated. Please allow time for posting. Comments are not edited. They are either approved or they are not. Comments should be void of personal attacks, foul language, advertisements or impersonations. Please limit comments to 200 words or less. |