OPINION: Why consider rejecting the HUUSD budget? Reason #4: All things considered
February 28, 2025 | By Steve Martin I will not restate details of my earlier posts here. Find them posted on the Waterbury Roundabout on Feb. 7, 15, and 22. Here I will just try to tie my overall reasoning together.
After having followed the school budget process somewhat for the past two years, here are a few of my observations:
The school board appears to be lobbied overwhelmingly by school system employees and parents not wanting any reduction in any services or attention that they, or their children, enjoy. I can understand their positions. Nonetheless, the Harwood Unified Union School District remains one of the highest per-pupil spending districts in the state.
Our state legislators take the position, “Don't look at us, we don't approve local budgets, we just have to find the money to fund them.” Of course, they do control state requirements on education affecting all local budgets and they also approve changes in tax formulas and systems that influence property (and other) taxes.
The federal government historically has passed legislation that placed increased education requirements on states that may have been only partially funded, from a federal budget of increasingly borrowed money, adding to the enormous debt our children will owe as they become the taxpayers.
School infrastructure across most of the state is reportedly in dire condition. Our local HUUSD was, before the recent property tax crisis, planning to ask taxpayers to approve tens of millions of dollars for a bond to repair buildings in our district. That unattended need has only grown. As soon as the property tax crisis is addressed (perhaps sooner) taxpayers will face a new crisis in education infrastructure.
Last year, taxpayers finally said “enough.” The statewide average property tax increase was almost 14%, reduced from much higher projections only after the taxpayer revolt when a substantial number of taxpayers said “No.”
Unfortunately, while property taxes were the straw that almost broke the camel's back last year, the legislature also has the ability to create new taxes or increase other taxes and shift some of the property tax burden to other less visible taxes, giving the appearance they are trimming spending.
These things are all interconnected. Even if well-intentioned, the big picture begs the pragmatic mind to ask if this formula can really be considered rational.
The issue is complicated and will tug at heartstrings. We are asked to continue the overbearing tax sacrifice “for the kids.” Unfortunately, from my perspective, this situation will not be seriously addressed as long as the taxpayers keep approving increases in the school budgets.
As a taxpayer, there is only one thing I can do to insist on significant changes. It is exactly the same thing that causes me to adjust my own household budget. When I don't have enough money to pay for everything I desire, I have to decide which items in my budget I must trim (for some people this may include real, or perceived, necessities). Or I have to find a way to achieve what I want in a more cost-effective way. As citizens, we have to make tough choices, get creative, or both.
It is past time to face the fact that our nation is head-over-heels in debt and our state is the third-highest taxed in the nation (while our neighbor to the east is the second-lowest taxed).
My proposed “solution”? No increase in the school budget. Insist that our schools and our government deal with reality the same way we must. History shows it can be done. Last year, the originally requested “responsible” budget of $50,844,703 (11.94% increase from the prior year) was rejected by the taxpayers (as well as the reduced second request). Taxpayers finally approved a third budget of $47,892,873 (almost $3 million less, but still a 5.44% increase). And anticipated tax increases were also reduced (though not in direct proportion and not enough).
Only if taxpayers say “no” will it continue to get serious attention, and the school district and our state (and federal) representatives will be forced to face and address some rather unpleasant realities.
Some may say that this is not fair to our children. I suggest that what is not fair to our children is to let them become taxpaying adults whose inheritance will include a $36 trillion national debt (borrowed by their parents and grandparents) while living in one of the highest-taxed states in the nation (unless they move elsewhere upon graduation, as so many young people do).
Please weigh in by voting on March 4. Please vote responsibly.
Steve Martin lives in Waterbury.