Revised Capital Budget Proposal 2-26-08

At yesterday's school board meeting, the Superintendent presented a revised facilities proposal to the board. It is a bare-bones, no frills, minimum to maintain the facilities. It appears to contain none of the items that many voters found objectionable in the recently defeated proposal (moving offices, new cafeteria, etc.). The total budget amount is $4.8 million.

However, it may have gone too far in the other direction. We do need to make sure our facilities are properly maintained and it's hard to make that judgement at this point.

Please understand that this is only the Superintendent's proposal to the board. The board can reject it or modify it any way they feel necessary. The proposal is shown below (click to enlarge).

Also, an assumption operating budget was presented for the 2008-2009 school year. This means it is based upon best estimates of state aid, increases in benefit costs, fuel costs, etc. but is otherwise business as usual (no changes to staffing, for example). It is the starting point for preparation of the actual budget, the first draft of which will be presented at the March 11 meeting.

There was no discussion of the issue that has been the subject of rumors the past few weeks regarding potential staffing changes.

Final Vote Resutls

Prop 1: Yes – 190; No – 1,016

Prop 2: Yes – 173; No – 1,024

VOTE RESULTS!!

The proposition 1 vote was 968 NO, 178 YES with about 50 absentee ballots yet to be counted.

Proposition 2 was 980 NO, 164 YES

We'll look forward to the board's revised proposal.

Thanks to all who helped bring about this result.

Editorial in today's Independent

The Independent has an editorial today opposing the budget proposals. Read it at http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19210750&BRD=248&PAG=461&dept_id=505345&rfi=6

Board presentation Jan. 15, 2008

The Board made its public presentation tonight. It was relatively sparsely attended, and no new points were addressed nor was any new information presented.

The page at the bottom of this post (click to enlarge) will be published as well as appear as a flyer in local newspapers this week. Please forward this blog link to anyone you think would be interested. Remember, the vote is this Tuesday, Jan. 22, noon - 9 PM at the MED Elementary School. The flyer is also shown below as text if you want to cut and paste and e-mail it.

You will have to vote on both proposals. Voting no on proposal 1 does not automatically cast a no vote on proposal 2. If you are against both, you must vote no to each individually.

EVERY VOTE WILL COUNT!! The Shenendehowa school district held a referendum in December. It passed by a vote of 1,549 yes votes to 1,526 no votes. 23 votes out of 3000+, so every vote can make a difference.

Here is the text of the flyer:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the residents of the Chatham Central Schools District regarding the

Chatham Central Schools $35 million facilities improvement proposals

Despite the best intentions of the Board of Education and the time spent on developing the proposals, this plan is not logical for the following reasons:

· School taxes, already at a level that is driving out residents, will increase over the 15 year term of the bond issue that will finance the proposals. This is in addition to the current school taxes we pay every year to operate the district, and to which we can expect annual increases as we have seen in the past. It is important to note that the proposal amounts do not include the interest on the bonds, which must be added to the annual school budget.

· The Board’s own projections show enrollments declining between 22% and 40% over the next 10 years. The high school graduating class of 2000 had 116 students. The current kindergarten has 75!! The proposals are too ambitious for what is needed and affordable at this time, and approval makes no sense in light of these trends.

· The Board says that the cost of the bond per year to an individual taxpayer will remain fixed. However, it ignores the fact that if a taxpayer’s assessment is increased, their taxes will increase also. As we all know, increased assessments are a fact of life and if assessments increase an average of 5% a year, the tax impact of these proposals on an average homeowner will have doubled by the time the bond is repaid.

· Tomorrow’s taxes = today’s taxes + increase due to bond issue + increases due to lower state aid as a result of lower enrollments + increases due to rise in property values + increases in school budget due to inflation.

There is no question that there are many improvements needed in our facilities and that money must be spent to accomplish them and provide for academic development, but this proposal goes far beyond that scope by including many “nice to have” but unnecessary items.

In light of declining enrollments and the financial hardships that will be faced, the Board must come back with a plan which is affordable and meets the essential and critical needs of the district.

For more information, visit www.chathamny.blogspot.com or e-mail chathamny@gmail.com .

The vote is Jan. 22, 2008 12 – 9 PM at the MED

Vote NO to $25 million – Proposition 1
Vote NO to $10 million – Proposition 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update coming shortly

To be notified of updates to the blog, please send a blank e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com. No use will be made of your e-mail address other than to inform you of updates.

More information coming soon

The vote counter has been reset to reflect the actual propositions to be voted on. You can vote on the left (see Dec. 1 post for a description of the 2 proposals or click here http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district_office/CapProjectNewsletterApprovedConcD12.pdf ).

The final tally of the original vote (with just one proposition) was 10 yes, 68 no, 5 undecided.

Facilities vote on Jan. 22, 2008

Please see below for very important information about the CCS budget vote.

You do not need to own property to vote. Renters can vote if they otherwise meet the criteria. If you cannot vote in person, please vote absentee. Pay attention to the requirements below to get absentee ballots - do it now!!. Couples: both members can and should vote.

If you haven't registered but are qualified, please register so you can vote. Registration is (as shown below) on Jan. 3 (less than 2 weeks from now).

Please pass this along to anyone who lives in the district!!

When and where is the vote?

The referendum will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, from 12 – 9 p.m. at Mary E. Dardess Elementary School.

Who can vote?

There are a few qualifications that must be met in order to be eligible to vote on January 22.

You must be

a citizen of the United States
18 years of age or older
a resident of the Chatham Central School District for more than 30 days preceding the vote
registered to vote with either the School District or with Columbia County Board of Elections

If you have not previously registered and you would like to vote on this referendum, you must register with the School District Board of Registration.

Those individuals who are not on either the County list or the School District Register List will not be allowed to vote.

You do have a chance to register with the District on Thursday, January 3, 2008, between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the lobby of the M.E.D. Elementary School.

Do you accept absentee ballots? - VERY IMPORTANT, READ THIS!!

Yes. If you wish to have an absentee ballot mailed to you, you must first request an application for the absentee ballot from the District Clerk at least seven days prior to the vote (mailing address: District Clerk, CHATHAM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 50 Woodbridge Avenue, Chatham, NY 12037)

If you wish to apply for an absentee ballot that you will be submitting in person, you must apply in the District Clerk’s office prior to 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2008. All absentee ballots must be received in the District Office by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2008.

If you want more information, call the district (392-2400, ask for the district clerk) or send an e-mail to this blog at chathamny@gmail.com .

Board Approves Final Facilities Proposition (click page below to enlarge)

At its Nov. 27 meeting, the board approved the final form of the propositions to be voted upon in a referendum on Jan. 22, 2008. The basic proposition (#1) is approximately as indicated before at around $25 million, but the enhanced proposition (#2) has increased from $4.6 to $9.8 million, for a total of $35 million. Approximately $12 million of the $47 million in the original proposal has been totally eliminated. Some of the items have been shifted from #1 to #2 or vice versa to come up with the final proposal.

The vote is Jan. 22, 2008. Absentee ballotting is permitted. Here is the link to the form of the proposition: http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district_office/CapitalProjectReferendumApproved.pdf

The final breakdown is shown above (click to enlarge) or go to http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district_office/CapProjectNewsletterApprovedConcD12.pdf

Final Board of Education Budget Meeting Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The next and final budget board meeting is this Tuesday, November 27 at 6:30 in the high school library. This is the meeting at which the board will decide what items will go into each of the two propositions which will be part of a budget referendum on Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008. This is the last chance to let the board know how you feel. You can attend the meeting, or you can call individual board members prior to the meeting. As of the last board meeting, the first proposition will be at least $25.3 million, and the second will be at least $15.9 million, with an additional $4.6 million that could go into either or be eliminated entirely. Potential total is $45.8 million.

I think it would be much better to have a set of reasonable propositions decided upon on Tuesday, rather than have to vote down unrealistic ones in January.

In the interests of protecting their privacy, I won't put their numbers here but most of them are listed in the phone book. If you need help in getting a particular number, send an e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com . Your request will be kept confidential and no use will be made of your e-mail address other than to respond to you.

As taken from the CCS web site, here are the board members:

John Wapner, President
Elizabeth Macfarlane, Vice President
Ric Campbell
Michael Clark
Denise Dapice
Francis Iaconetti
David O'Connor
Wayne Rose
James Toteno

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 11-8-07

The Board has come out with a revised proposal (shown above, click to enlarge) but there are still too many, non-essential, not educationally necessary items. The base proposal is now $25.3 million, but there are a number of items that may still get added to it. Apparently nothing will be taken away from this new base.

More information will be added to this blog shortly.

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 10-23-07

At its meeting last night, the board presented a scaled-down version of the original $47 million proposal.

The revision, shown above (click to enlarge), essentially broke the total into two pieces, a $30 million piece consisting of "infrastructure and high priority program improvements" and a $16 million piece (the remaining items). A 4 classroom addition for $1 million was basically eliminated.

The board then voted 7-2 to revisit the manner in which the budget would be presented to the voters, with the majority agreeing that there would be two proposals rather than one.

There would be a basic, high-priority set of items and a second, additional set of desirable but not absolutely necessary items. Voters could then approve the first set, both sets, or neither.

The board will now be working to decide what items go into each of the two categories.

Board of Education meeting Oct. 23, 2007

The board will be discussing the capital facilities project at this meeting. See http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/boe/agenda102307.pdf

Reply to Board of Education FAQ's

Response to the CCS Facilities Proposal FAQ posted by the Board of Education

The Superintendent and Board President have posted responses to questions they believe are of interest to voters, tax-payers, parents, faculty and others.

They state they will be the “primary source of accurate and objective information about the proposed project, its educational benefits, and its costs.”

Let’s be very clear about something: their information will be no more objective than this blog. Their agenda is clearly to get their proposal passed. The difference is that the blog states it is not intended to be objective.

This post is not an attempt to reply to every point they make, some of which are valid, but rather to indicate concerns with their responses.

· The fact that the architect billed us for $45,000 for work costing them $350,000 is irrelevant. They took on this job expecting to make a significant amount of money when the project is approved. Their interest is in seeing the project completed, on which they will no doubt recoup all their costs and make a profit. Some people would call this a “loss leader.” In addition, if they were unable to estimate reasonably accurately the cost of working with CCS to develop the proposal (which they underestimated by a factor of 8!!!), how can we expect to rely on their estimates for a multi-million dollar project? If they have so much experience, one would expect a more accurate cost estimate.

· In addition, having this architect serve as the district’s “professional advisor” on this project seems to be a clear conflict of interest. I think the board exercised poor judgment in having the same person design the facilities and serve in the above advisory capacity.

· It is not at all clear that reconstructing the 1958 MED wing will substantially improve the education of the students. What data is there to support this statement? Fully integrating everything sounds nice, but “where’s the beef?” We need more than a touch-feely sense that this will be the case.

· It is hardly a side note that the district and support office are being relocated.

· The comment that public school districts must follow ALL (their emphasis) State Ed and building code regulations is irrelevant. Are we following them now? If so, the comment adds nothing. If not, what are we doing NOW (my emphasis) to remedy the situation?

· The comment that we must follow the Wicks law is also irrelevant. It has no bearing on the issue.

· Maximizing state aid is not the same thing as minimizing taxpayer impact. We can maximize state aid by doing lots of things we may not need. This increases the taxpayer burden.

· Bundling classrooms with a gym makes no sense. If we need new classrooms (which may or may not be the case), then propose new classrooms. Bundling 4 classrooms with a $4 million gym to perhaps maximize state aid will increase spending for something we don’t need in order to get something that we might need. While there’ll be more state aid, there’ll be much more in taxes.

· While the Board gives lip service to declining enrollments, very little in the facilities proposal appears to recognize a substantial decline in student population. The Board’s enrollment projection study dated August 2006 (by an outside consultant) indicates 2005 – 2006 K-12 enrollment at 1415 students. The study has a number of different scenarios projecting possible enrollments to the year 2016. The most optimistic projection (i.e., greatest number of students) shows 1090 students in 2016, a decline of 315 students or 23%. However, other scenarios they identified indicate that enrollment could be as low as 790 students, a drop of 625 students, or 44%.

· They ask that “people view the proposal in its entirety for the positive impact it will have on many facets of the educational enterprise, rather than viewing its components piecemeal without full understanding of how they interrelate, before making judgments.”

This suggestion has merit. When will the information be available that will allow us to evaluate the “positive impact … on the educational enterprise?”

UPDATE on Oct. 9 Board Meeting

The Board, after thoughtful discussion, modified the proposed resolution to read:

"R.28 BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Education accept the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFPC) Report recommendation in its entirety, as goals to develop referenda for voter approval." (Bold text in board agenda, and represents the change from the original shown below).

The resolution was passed with all board members voting to approve it.

I think this indicates that the board considers the $47 million proposal as a set of goals to be considered over time, and which will form the basis for potential voter approval, but not necessarily all at once.

The remainder of the board meeting consisted of a lengthy (but very interesting) presentation by the board's financial consultant, who did an outstanding job of trying to boil down the enormous complexities of budgets, state aid, borrowing costs, tax rates, equalization rates, etc. to something understandable. There is no easy way to summarize his approx. 100 pages of spreadsheets as well as his multiple sets of assumptions, but his efforts will help the board attempt to balance educational and taxpayer needs. They have their work cut out for them.