The Board of Education held a town hall meeting today presenting the capital projects (details are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district/cap_project.asp).
There are two propositions.
The first is for approximately $5.087 million and consists of a number of projects relating to energy efficiency, safety, Americans With Disabilites Act, infrastructure, and various program needs. This will be financed with no increase in taxes by using funds left over from the previous capital project, federal stimulus money, state aid, and funds from the district's capital reserve. As I've said before, not everyone would agree with each of the individual projects within this proposal, but as a whole, it makes sense.
There are two points I want to make regarding the financing of this proposal. First, the federal stimulus money (approx. $547,000) is a one-time opportunity to be used now. If the funds are not spent by June, they will no longer be available. Secondly, while there has been a lot of press about New York's budget crisis and possible cuts to school budgets, the cuts that have been discussed have been only to operating, rather than building budgets, so the state aid portion (approx. 50%, or $2.5 million) should not be affected.
The second proposition (which can only pass if the first passes) is for $320,000 and consists only of replacing lights on the high school athletic field. It is included in the total $5.087 million. This proposition would be financed $160,000 from the district capital reserve, and $160,000 state aid. If this proposition does not pass, but the first does, then the total amount would be reduced by $320,000, and the amount from the capital reserve and state aid portions would be reduced by $160,000 each.
I am in favor of the first proposition, but think the second is on shaky ground. We already have lights, albeit not what we would like. Twenty events were held under the lights during the fall. Obviously they are doing the job. At this point in our economic cycle, I do not think this is the way our money should be spent.
I recommend voting YES for Proposition One, and NO for Proposition Two.
The vote is this Tuesday, January 12, from 9AM to 9PM in the MED gymnasium.
As usual, in our relatively small district with a relatively small number of voters, every vote will count. While the original $35 million proposal was defeated by a margin of more than 5 to 1 (approx. 800 vote margin), the revised $6 million proposal passed by passed by only 10 (ten!) votes out of more than 800 cast. Please vote!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Capital proposal - Board of Education meeting Oct. 13, 2009
At last week's board meeting, the architect provided a summary of building needs and estimated total cost by building, but there were no costs attached to specific projects within each building, in part due to the preliminary nature of the evaluation.
At the board meeting last night, audience members and some board members expressed concern that the voters would not have a clear picture of what would be voted upon, should the board go ahead with presenting the $5 million capital proposal to the voters (potential voting date of Dec.8, 2009), nor would the voters have an understanding of individual project costs or the criteria by which a given project might or might not eventually be included in the final construction. As construction costs are refined later in the project, it might be necessary to include or exclude certain elements due to their costs being less than or more than originally thought.
The board agreed to develop and make known such criteria, but the voters should realize that the actual work that will be completed may differ from that which is specified, and that voters are voting for the $5MM bond issue, not for a specific package of projects.
The board will be holding public meetings and make available further information. At present I have the architect's spreadsheet showing the individual projects and total cost by building. If you would like a copy, send an e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com. Please keep in mind that this may be revised and may not represent the actual work that will be done!!!
At the board meeting last night, audience members and some board members expressed concern that the voters would not have a clear picture of what would be voted upon, should the board go ahead with presenting the $5 million capital proposal to the voters (potential voting date of Dec.8, 2009), nor would the voters have an understanding of individual project costs or the criteria by which a given project might or might not eventually be included in the final construction. As construction costs are refined later in the project, it might be necessary to include or exclude certain elements due to their costs being less than or more than originally thought.
The board agreed to develop and make known such criteria, but the voters should realize that the actual work that will be completed may differ from that which is specified, and that voters are voting for the $5MM bond issue, not for a specific package of projects.
The board will be holding public meetings and make available further information. At present I have the architect's spreadsheet showing the individual projects and total cost by building. If you would like a copy, send an e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com. Please keep in mind that this may be revised and may not represent the actual work that will be done!!!
Capital Proposal - Board of Education meeting Oct. 6, 2009
At a very sparsely attended BOE meeting last night, there was a presentation by the district's (new) architect and the superintendent regarding a capital project proposal.
What they would like to do is to take $547,000 in federal stimulus money that must be spent by the end of the school year (6-30-2010), add to it $550,000 from the previous bond issue of approx. $6 million that was not spent due to some of the project coming in under budget and in addition allocate approx. $1.4 million from the district's existing capital reserve fund. This gives a total of approx. $2.5 million and then adding in estimated state aid of a little under 50% brings the total to approx. $5 million that could be used with no direct tax impact.
The architect reviewed the projects that would be implemented were the proposal to be approved. Details will be coming from the BOE but there were none of the grandiose projects that were in the original referendum that was defeated. There were mostly smaller items across all 3 buildings (costs attached to specific projects were not given) that related to improving energy efficiency, roof repairs still remaining, some ADA issues, and a number of others.
I'm not sure I agree with the necessity for every single one of the suggestions but as an entire package I think it's worthwhile for a number of reasons:
- No tax impact (however, see below)
- Use of federal stimulus money which will not be available on an on-going basis
- Availability of approx. 50% state aid which, due to the fiscal condition of the state, may be lower in the future
It does appear that the project can be implemented with no tax impact. However, using the capital reserve funds of $1.4 million will nearly deplete the district's capital reserve, which then must be rebuilt. I was assured by the superintendent and a number of board members that, although the fund will need to be rebuilt, it will be rebuilt over a number of years, not all at once, so it is possible that there might be an indirect impact on taxes in the future. I believe the board is very aware of taxpayer concerns and will consider the speed at which the reserve is rebuilt when formulating the 2010-2011 district budget.
Due to various regulatory constraints, this proposal would have to be presented to the voters for approval in December.
At this point, and subject to further details from the BOE, I think the project makes sense.
I will forward further details as they become available.
What they would like to do is to take $547,000 in federal stimulus money that must be spent by the end of the school year (6-30-2010), add to it $550,000 from the previous bond issue of approx. $6 million that was not spent due to some of the project coming in under budget and in addition allocate approx. $1.4 million from the district's existing capital reserve fund. This gives a total of approx. $2.5 million and then adding in estimated state aid of a little under 50% brings the total to approx. $5 million that could be used with no direct tax impact.
The architect reviewed the projects that would be implemented were the proposal to be approved. Details will be coming from the BOE but there were none of the grandiose projects that were in the original referendum that was defeated. There were mostly smaller items across all 3 buildings (costs attached to specific projects were not given) that related to improving energy efficiency, roof repairs still remaining, some ADA issues, and a number of others.
I'm not sure I agree with the necessity for every single one of the suggestions but as an entire package I think it's worthwhile for a number of reasons:
- No tax impact (however, see below)
- Use of federal stimulus money which will not be available on an on-going basis
- Availability of approx. 50% state aid which, due to the fiscal condition of the state, may be lower in the future
It does appear that the project can be implemented with no tax impact. However, using the capital reserve funds of $1.4 million will nearly deplete the district's capital reserve, which then must be rebuilt. I was assured by the superintendent and a number of board members that, although the fund will need to be rebuilt, it will be rebuilt over a number of years, not all at once, so it is possible that there might be an indirect impact on taxes in the future. I believe the board is very aware of taxpayer concerns and will consider the speed at which the reserve is rebuilt when formulating the 2010-2011 district budget.
Due to various regulatory constraints, this proposal would have to be presented to the voters for approval in December.
At this point, and subject to further details from the BOE, I think the project makes sense.
I will forward further details as they become available.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Final Budget Information
The Board of Education met last night, the final meeting before the budget vote next Tuesday, May 19 at the MED (9AM - 9PM). No new budget information was presented.
To summarize, the total budget is .98% above last year's, with the tax levy increasing 1.55% as a result of decreased state aid. The one-bell transportation system is incorporated in this budget.
A few items directly or indirectly relating to the budget:
-Funds are included for an external hire if necessary to replace the retiring MED principal.
-No new buses will be purchased this year.
-The district has identified a bus surveillance system that will be purchased if the budget is approved; details were sketchy but it will apparently be able to view the entire bus and store the data on a hard drive. While not mentioned at the meeting, it seemed as if the video would be saved for a period of time and be viewed only if circumstances require.
-There are two BOE seats being voted upon and two candidates. The candidate with the higher vote total will get a 3 year term; the other candidate will fill out the 1 year remaining on Ric Campbell's term.
-There is also a proposition to allow a student to sit on the BOE as a non-voting member.
Please come out on the 19th and vote to support this budget!
To summarize, the total budget is .98% above last year's, with the tax levy increasing 1.55% as a result of decreased state aid. The one-bell transportation system is incorporated in this budget.
A few items directly or indirectly relating to the budget:
-Funds are included for an external hire if necessary to replace the retiring MED principal.
-No new buses will be purchased this year.
-The district has identified a bus surveillance system that will be purchased if the budget is approved; details were sketchy but it will apparently be able to view the entire bus and store the data on a hard drive. While not mentioned at the meeting, it seemed as if the video would be saved for a period of time and be viewed only if circumstances require.
-There are two BOE seats being voted upon and two candidates. The candidate with the higher vote total will get a 3 year term; the other candidate will fill out the 1 year remaining on Ric Campbell's term.
-There is also a proposition to allow a student to sit on the BOE as a non-voting member.
Please come out on the 19th and vote to support this budget!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Board of Education meeting April 21, 2009
The board approved the 2009-2010 budget. It is essentially unchanged from the initial draft, and includes the one-bell transportation proposal and a tax levy increase of 1.55%. Here's the link:
http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/April212009Budget.pdf.
It is a good budget, preserving and improving Chatham's educational values and making good use of our scarce budget resources.
Remember, we must vote to approve it on May 19!
The board also introduced the new superintendent, Cheryl Nuciforo, who will start on July 1.
http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/April212009Budget.pdf.
It is a good budget, preserving and improving Chatham's educational values and making good use of our scarce budget resources.
Remember, we must vote to approve it on May 19!
The board also introduced the new superintendent, Cheryl Nuciforo, who will start on July 1.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Board of Education meeting April 7, 2009
At the meeting, a brief budget presentation was made. It is essentially unchanged from the original presentation.
As a result of stimulus money, state aid will be increased by approximately $500,000. The interim superintendent strongly recommended that this one-time (although there may be a second payment next year) payment be used to fund capital improvements, rather than operating expenses. When added to a like amount already in the capital improvement fund, and leveraged with state aid for capital improvements, approximately $2 million in needed capital improvements can be funded with no tax increase. This makes a lot of sense and the board agreed.
In addition, the board announced that, pending final contract negotiations, a new school superintendent has been hired.
While not formally announced at the meeting, it is essentially public knowledge that board member Ric Campbell will be leaving the board due to increasing demands on his time at Bard College. His depth of experience and the perspective as an educator that he brought to the board will be missed and will leave a hole that hopefully can be filled.
At the next board meeting on April 21, the board will vote to adopt a budget.
At the May 12 meeting, the board will present the education plan and the budget, and the taxpayers' vote will take place on May 19.
As a result of stimulus money, state aid will be increased by approximately $500,000. The interim superintendent strongly recommended that this one-time (although there may be a second payment next year) payment be used to fund capital improvements, rather than operating expenses. When added to a like amount already in the capital improvement fund, and leveraged with state aid for capital improvements, approximately $2 million in needed capital improvements can be funded with no tax increase. This makes a lot of sense and the board agreed.
In addition, the board announced that, pending final contract negotiations, a new school superintendent has been hired.
While not formally announced at the meeting, it is essentially public knowledge that board member Ric Campbell will be leaving the board due to increasing demands on his time at Bard College. His depth of experience and the perspective as an educator that he brought to the board will be missed and will leave a hole that hopefully can be filled.
At the next board meeting on April 21, the board will vote to adopt a budget.
At the May 12 meeting, the board will present the education plan and the budget, and the taxpayers' vote will take place on May 19.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Summary of 3-10-09 Board meeting
Interim superintendent Lee Bordick presented the proposed 2009-2010 budget. Details are posted on the district's web site (http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget/budget_draft.pdf).
Highlights:
Structural trends in Chatham's budget indicate that expenditures overall would significantly increase over time unless steps were taken now to minimize future spending increases.
Business as usual (maintaining all existing programs, staffing levels, supply agreements, etc.) would result in a 7.9% budget expenditure increase, and due to an initial anticipated decline in state aid of approximately 5% would necessitate a 17.5% increase in the tax levy. However, the actual decline in state aid as currently proposed is 11.6%, which would require a tax increase of almost 20%.
Approximately 12 staff positions being voluntarily vacated will not be filled. Thanks were given to those leaving for their dedication and years of service. Significant savings will be realized as a results of a 15% reduction in equipment, material and supplies. Certain programs are being maintained or added at little or no additional cost, including interscholastic sports. A comment was made that the proposed elimination of the adult education brochure would disadvantage those who did not have a computer to access the same information on the district's web site.
As expected, however, much of the discussion from the audience involved the plan to institute a 1-bell bus routing, rather than the current 2-bell system. This means essentially that there will be only a single bus run rather than 2 as is currently the case. Cost savings were estimated at slightly less than $200,000 for the year, and this assumes no reduction in transportation staff, even though a reduction (and further cost savings) would be likely over time due to retirements/resignations (and decreased need for bus replacements).
A number of parents expressed concern that their younger children would be on the same bus as older students, and raised questions about pickup locations, length of time on a bus, availability of seating if buses are filled, and other issues. It was pointed out that younger students currently do share a bus with older students on the late bus.
Mr. Bordick addressed some of these questions, but did indicate that this was a work in progress and further study would be needed. A number of audience members spoke out either in favor of the 1-bell proposal, or indicated that they would maintain an open mind as details of the 1-bell system were worked out. This latter group included parents whose child/children would be directly affected.
Dr. Wapner indicated a working group of parents, transportation department and board members would be formed to work out these issues. It was also suggested that representatives (parents, administrators) of school districts that have implemented a 1-bell system be invited to relate their experiences with the system.
Assuming that the budget is passed as proposed (and there are a number of steps and meetings that will take place before the taxpayers vote on May 19), the actual budget appropriation (the amount that voters will authorize to be spent) will decrease by 1.7% from 2008-2009, but due to the large decline in state aid, the amount to be raised via taxes will increase by 1.6%.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the details of the proposal, a tax increase of only 1.6% represents a significant change from the larger increases of the past, and the superintendent and board should be congratulated for a new way of thinking about running the district and breaking away from the business as usual mindset we have seen in the past.
Finally, many commented on the excellence of Mr. Bordick's presentation.
Highlights:
Structural trends in Chatham's budget indicate that expenditures overall would significantly increase over time unless steps were taken now to minimize future spending increases.
Business as usual (maintaining all existing programs, staffing levels, supply agreements, etc.) would result in a 7.9% budget expenditure increase, and due to an initial anticipated decline in state aid of approximately 5% would necessitate a 17.5% increase in the tax levy. However, the actual decline in state aid as currently proposed is 11.6%, which would require a tax increase of almost 20%.
Recognizing the impact that a tax increase of that magnitude would have, a decision was made to take advantage of declining enrollments and staff retirement/resignations to rethink how the district operates without affecting Chatham's educational values and staff.
Approximately 12 staff positions being voluntarily vacated will not be filled. Thanks were given to those leaving for their dedication and years of service. Significant savings will be realized as a results of a 15% reduction in equipment, material and supplies. Certain programs are being maintained or added at little or no additional cost, including interscholastic sports. A comment was made that the proposed elimination of the adult education brochure would disadvantage those who did not have a computer to access the same information on the district's web site.
As expected, however, much of the discussion from the audience involved the plan to institute a 1-bell bus routing, rather than the current 2-bell system. This means essentially that there will be only a single bus run rather than 2 as is currently the case. Cost savings were estimated at slightly less than $200,000 for the year, and this assumes no reduction in transportation staff, even though a reduction (and further cost savings) would be likely over time due to retirements/resignations (and decreased need for bus replacements).
A number of parents expressed concern that their younger children would be on the same bus as older students, and raised questions about pickup locations, length of time on a bus, availability of seating if buses are filled, and other issues. It was pointed out that younger students currently do share a bus with older students on the late bus.
Mr. Bordick addressed some of these questions, but did indicate that this was a work in progress and further study would be needed. A number of audience members spoke out either in favor of the 1-bell proposal, or indicated that they would maintain an open mind as details of the 1-bell system were worked out. This latter group included parents whose child/children would be directly affected.
Dr. Wapner indicated a working group of parents, transportation department and board members would be formed to work out these issues. It was also suggested that representatives (parents, administrators) of school districts that have implemented a 1-bell system be invited to relate their experiences with the system.
Assuming that the budget is passed as proposed (and there are a number of steps and meetings that will take place before the taxpayers vote on May 19), the actual budget appropriation (the amount that voters will authorize to be spent) will decrease by 1.7% from 2008-2009, but due to the large decline in state aid, the amount to be raised via taxes will increase by 1.6%.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the details of the proposal, a tax increase of only 1.6% represents a significant change from the larger increases of the past, and the superintendent and board should be congratulated for a new way of thinking about running the district and breaking away from the business as usual mindset we have seen in the past.
Finally, many commented on the excellence of Mr. Bordick's presentation.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Chatham schools 2009 - 2010 budget
There is a board of education meeting on Tuesday, March 10, at 6:30 in the high school library.
The board will present its first draft of next year's school operating budget. The board and superintendent have been working very hard to minimize the impact on the tax levy, which will be particularly challenging in light of the dramatic cuts in state aid for the upcoming year. They are very aware of the difficult financial situation and its impact on taxpayers.
They will also present the "single bell" proposal which would substitute one bus run for the current two, which is a key element in holding down expenses.
I will summarize significant aspects of the meeting on this blog, but I encourage you to attend to hear firsthand their proposals.
The board will present its first draft of next year's school operating budget. The board and superintendent have been working very hard to minimize the impact on the tax levy, which will be particularly challenging in light of the dramatic cuts in state aid for the upcoming year. They are very aware of the difficult financial situation and its impact on taxpayers.
They will also present the "single bell" proposal which would substitute one bus run for the current two, which is a key element in holding down expenses.
I will summarize significant aspects of the meeting on this blog, but I encourage you to attend to hear firsthand their proposals.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Budget vote May 20, 2008
The school budget vote is Tuesday, May 20 at the MED Elementary School from 9 AM - 9 PM.
Here is a summary of the items that will be voted upon, along with my recommendations regarding voting choices:
1 - The 2008-2009 school (operating) budget is up 2.3% over the current year, with an increase in the tax levy of 4.1%. The board has done a good job in recognizing the effect of declining enrollment and reduced state aid, yet continuing to provide essential services. All the budget presentations emphasized cost containment.
I recommend voting "yes" for the budget, details of which are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget_files/powerpoint%20budget%20draft%204.pdf
For further information, the board is holding a public hearing on Tuesday, May 13 at 7 p.m. in the High School Library,
2 - The first of 4 propositions (Prop 1) is a recast of the defeated $35 million capital proposal. It totals $6,035,000 and contains only those items the board believes to be absolutely necessary to maintain the facilities and deal with critical health and safety issues. I agree with their assessment and there appear to be none of the "nice to have but not critical" items that many voters found objectionable in the defeated proposal. Due to the runoff of previous borrowings, the funds that would be borrowed for these projects would result in no additional taxes.
While it could be argued that if this money were not spent, taxes could actually be lowered, it would be very short-sighted not to appropriate this smaller amount to begin the process of dealing with our aging facilities.
I recommend voting "yes" for this proposition, details of which are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget_files/Facility%20Committee%20Recommended%20Concept.pdf
3 - Prop 2 asks for approval to establish a Capital Reserve Fund, into which funds may be put for future capital projects. The fund will be capped at $3.5 million and due to the timing of the vote, no money can be placed in the fund until the 2009-2010 year, and only if voters approve such placement. Since no money will go into this fund in 2008-2009, there will be no tax impact this year. This idea makes sense, and I recommend voting "yes" for Prop 2. http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budgetpage.html
4 - Prop 3 shortens the term of all newly elected board members from 5 years (much too long) to 3 years (much more sensible). Vote "yes" on this.
5 - Prop 4 is a relatively routine item to replace aging school buses. Vote "yes" on this.
The board has done a good job of listening to and acting on the feedback from the community . These items deserve our support.
In addition, there is one school board seat being contested. The incumbent and 1 challenger. I don't have a recommendation for this.
Here is a summary of the items that will be voted upon, along with my recommendations regarding voting choices:
1 - The 2008-2009 school (operating) budget is up 2.3% over the current year, with an increase in the tax levy of 4.1%. The board has done a good job in recognizing the effect of declining enrollment and reduced state aid, yet continuing to provide essential services. All the budget presentations emphasized cost containment.
I recommend voting "yes" for the budget, details of which are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget_files/powerpoint%20budget%20draft%204.pdf
For further information, the board is holding a public hearing on Tuesday, May 13 at 7 p.m. in the High School Library,
2 - The first of 4 propositions (Prop 1) is a recast of the defeated $35 million capital proposal. It totals $6,035,000 and contains only those items the board believes to be absolutely necessary to maintain the facilities and deal with critical health and safety issues. I agree with their assessment and there appear to be none of the "nice to have but not critical" items that many voters found objectionable in the defeated proposal. Due to the runoff of previous borrowings, the funds that would be borrowed for these projects would result in no additional taxes.
While it could be argued that if this money were not spent, taxes could actually be lowered, it would be very short-sighted not to appropriate this smaller amount to begin the process of dealing with our aging facilities.
I recommend voting "yes" for this proposition, details of which are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget_files/Facility%20Committee%20Recommended%20Concept.pdf
3 - Prop 2 asks for approval to establish a Capital Reserve Fund, into which funds may be put for future capital projects. The fund will be capped at $3.5 million and due to the timing of the vote, no money can be placed in the fund until the 2009-2010 year, and only if voters approve such placement. Since no money will go into this fund in 2008-2009, there will be no tax impact this year. This idea makes sense, and I recommend voting "yes" for Prop 2. http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budgetpage.html
4 - Prop 3 shortens the term of all newly elected board members from 5 years (much too long) to 3 years (much more sensible). Vote "yes" on this.
5 - Prop 4 is a relatively routine item to replace aging school buses. Vote "yes" on this.
The board has done a good job of listening to and acting on the feedback from the community . These items deserve our support.
In addition, there is one school board seat being contested. The incumbent and 1 challenger. I don't have a recommendation for this.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Board of Education meeting March 11, 2008
The first budget proposal for the 2008-2009 school year was presented. It is the first draft of four that will be made as the Board considers its options.
Presentations were made by the Business Administrator regarding various components of the draft budget. It was quite clear that there was very heavy emphasis on controlling expenses, and there was recognition of the impact of declining enrollments. The Board, Superintendent, school principals and the administrators were all clearly focussed on providing services at acceptable cost levels.
The draft estimates the cost at approx. $26, 562, 000, which represents a 2.34% increase over the current year. However, due to an estimated decline in state aid of 4.73% (and this number will not be known with certainty until the state budget is approved), the property tax will have to increase by 5.0% to offset the decline in state aid.
A suggestion was made to consider hiring a second shift maintenance person, to deal with items that may previously have been contracted out and to attempt to keep up with needed maintenance. Second shift would allow work to be done without the students present. The cost of this was not included in the budget draft, but upon discussion, the Board asked for further information so that it could decide whether it made sense to have such a position. This idea does have merit.
On a lighter note, a presentation was made by Ms. Morgan, an MED teacher, and Elisabeth Grace, a social worker, asking the Board to permit the introduction of a therapy dog into the MED. Children who may, for example, have difficulty reading to adults seem to lose their inhibition if the listener is a dog. Ms. Grace has been doing this in the library quite successfully. The Board seemed receptive to the idea, although no decision was made a the meeting.
Presentations were made by the Business Administrator regarding various components of the draft budget. It was quite clear that there was very heavy emphasis on controlling expenses, and there was recognition of the impact of declining enrollments. The Board, Superintendent, school principals and the administrators were all clearly focussed on providing services at acceptable cost levels.
The draft estimates the cost at approx. $26, 562, 000, which represents a 2.34% increase over the current year. However, due to an estimated decline in state aid of 4.73% (and this number will not be known with certainty until the state budget is approved), the property tax will have to increase by 5.0% to offset the decline in state aid.
A suggestion was made to consider hiring a second shift maintenance person, to deal with items that may previously have been contracted out and to attempt to keep up with needed maintenance. Second shift would allow work to be done without the students present. The cost of this was not included in the budget draft, but upon discussion, the Board asked for further information so that it could decide whether it made sense to have such a position. This idea does have merit.
On a lighter note, a presentation was made by Ms. Morgan, an MED teacher, and Elisabeth Grace, a social worker, asking the Board to permit the introduction of a therapy dog into the MED. Children who may, for example, have difficulty reading to adults seem to lose their inhibition if the listener is a dog. Ms. Grace has been doing this in the library quite successfully. The Board seemed receptive to the idea, although no decision was made a the meeting.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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).
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.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
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
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
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.
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:
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
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)