The Citizens Advisory Committee had recommended either a zero increase or no more than a 3% increase. To get the budget down to only a 3% increase would have required a reduction of approximatly $185 thousand. The work done by Mr. Hart and Ms. Mitchell resulted in a $281 thousand decrease. To do this they:
- eliminated an increase of $20 thousand for contingency factors in Special Education Tuition paid to other RSUs (meaning we have to hope no increase next year to the 162 Special Needs/Special education students already enrolled in SAD63. Be aware, there are 162 special needs/special ed students identified out of the total SAD63 enrollment of 947. By my calculations that's 17%. Isn't that a bit high? Is SAD63 some kind of a magnet? If so, why? Are these long-term residents or people moving into the area in order to take advantage of our school programs. If it's the former, are we cultivating some environmental problems that are contributing to these problems in our children? If it's the later, is there something we can do to set up some kind of "residency requirements"?)
- reduced the budgeted amount for heating oil for Holbrook by $20 thousand - from the $120,000 budgeted in 2008-09 to $100,000 in 2009-10 - in the hopes that heating oil prices will not go through the roof (although gasoline prices this week alone have been crazy if you've noticed - going from $2.09 on Monday to $2.25 by this afternoon).
- reduced transportation & buses fleet fuel by $16 thousand - from the $71,000 budgeted in 2008-09 to $55,000 in 2009-10. (Again, keep your fingers crossed.)
- reduced the amount of money to be set aside for the Board of Directors' (School Board) legal fees originally planned at $100,000 to be set at $15,000 which is only $5 thousand more than was in the budget for 2008-09. This is an $85 thousand reduction from the earlier projected budget.
There was some discussion re: this last item but the rationale was as follows:
There is no way of knowing how long the lawsuit will continue (see my blog re: Thursday's District Court Hearing) or how expensive the action will finally be. Regardless of the outcome, even if the School Board prevails, the cost is going to be expensive. Mr. Hart's position is that the Board will probably have to go to the SAD63 taxpayers and request a vote authorizing a long-term note to be paid over a period of years. In the meantime, we can keep the budget increases low by being conservative in budgeting money in this line item.
For the most part, I understand this reasoning. On the other hand, there is the argument that budgeting portions of the costs now could keep the accruing costs down.
For Eddington, if I wrote down Mr. Hart's numbers correctly (he does have a tendency to rattle them off as though either no one is really paying attention to the details to take back to their towns' people - or that everyone is taping his remarks and can replay his numbers in order to write them down later. Since I am concerned about how town tax bases are impacted and I don't tape (yet), I asked Mr. Hart to repeat his numbers for Eddington (at least) and to say them slowly enough for me to write them down. Of course, they should be presented in writing and on the overhead at the Public hearing Wednesday. I believe Mr. Hart's estimated total share of the projected costs for Eddington were $1,339,466.44; this turns out to be an increase of $190 thousand over 2008-09. The $190 thousand includes the $50 thousand penalty we decided to take on when we voted down the school consolidation plan. The "for sure numbers" will be covered at the Public Hearing next Wednesday - the 13th - 7pm - Holbrook School - and voters should be there to ask questions.
Per Mr. Hart, the Legislature has determined the towns that voted against consolidation WILL BE REQUIRED to pay the state penalty this coming year (before?) in order to receive the state's contribution to the school budget (even though we have been hearing the penalties might be deferred for up to two years - or not be collected until after the people's Referendum vote on the ballot re: reversing the mandated school consolidation -for those communities that have not already voted for consolidation). I suppose, considering the state's current financial state, it shouldn't come as any surprise the state is out to collect any money it can as fast as it can regardless of past promises.
For the most part, the meeting went well. Sylvia Ellis, the Interim Chair, handled it well and people were complimentary to the work done by Mr. Hart and Ms. Mitchell.
It would be nice if Mr. Hart were not so rude to suggestions that emails be sent to the Entire School Board re: the many meeting dates coming up back to back - especially for the benefit of the new board members and those who work irregular hours or have family responsibilities. Mr. Hart's remarks that the information is on the web was not only non-responsive (most people check their emails daily whereas they don't check the web nearly that often), but his snappish response when asked to be responsive to the question/board member was unprofessional and out-of-line. First: This is not the military and Second: the superintendent is employed by the Board. While we can appreciate the experience and knowledge which enabled him to step in under what is acknowledged to have been a difficult situation, his expressed desire to return to his prior retirement status might be a good thing. This is not the military and the current chain of command now begins with the voter/taxpayers - then the School Board - and then the superintendent.
No comments:
Post a Comment