Made it to the BOF meeting Tuesday evening (4/24). It was at the WES rather than the town hall. Poor turnout.
Woodstock Academy presented first. State of the art presentation. WA Highlights: Current spending per student low compared to other schools at $9425. But the graph was using 04-05 levels. Nonetheless, low compared to the denser population schools. Budgeted enrollment 459 students, a change of 0.44% with a decreasing student to faculty ratio of 14.61(lowest was 14.03 in 96/97. Tuition increasing 4.34% with a total expenditure increase of 2.38% or $287,295.00. Little time for questions…BOT meeting.
Next was the WPS budget presented by Lindsey Paul and Dr. Baran. Budget increase proposed at 10.91%. or an increase of $1,542,131.00 . This increase includes a WA tuition increase of 4.99% (a little higher than WA proposed) or $481,776, salary contract increases of $322,478.00. Other increases include new staff salaries, 2 buses, textbooks, SPED, computer , maintenance/repairs, heating. Total budget $15,681,355 minus revenues (state 35.83% + town 64.17%)= $5,618, 762 = net budget $10,062,593.
Next, General Govt. budget. Highlights include: A less impressive presentation. Total budget increase of 10.62% or $537, 840.00. Town counsel fees were taken out of each budget and placed in a separate section. So keep this in mind when evaluating supposed decreases in departmental spending. Total counsel spending was $44,000.00. Some of the increases were due to salary increases, mileage, dues, conferences, fuel, added staff in Finance ($39,530.00), town clerk printing/lever machine $7500.00 , insurance and benefit increase of 7.73% ($48,673), open land aquisition increased from 50K to 250K, Fire protection increased from $117,000 to $123,000, police protection increased 62.41% from $4355 to $7073, highway dpt went up 17.94%!! or $241,514.00 (primarily due to desired purchase of a dump truck, back hoe, and pickup), public health/rec/welfare up very little at 0.64% (but you will be glad to know that dial-a-ride is still alive and well!).
Lastly, the total budget requests for 07/08 is $21,285,247.00 (Ed $15,681,355, Gov $4,520,074, redempt. of debt $1,083,818.00). Cuts needed to meet Prop 46 = $836,919.00.
-
On a more personal note. The meeting was relatively quiet. No sudden outbursts or finger pointing. One person challenged Ms. Wholean’s understanding of the process. Couldn’t hear him or understand him though (of course, the same could be said of Ms. Wholean). Mr. Hosmer reminded us that the people of Woodstock are our own worse enemies as it is our fault that the capital improvement did not pass and this is why we are in the mess we are in. One lady in the audience argued that rampant spending and bonding just gives us false comfort and that the burden of debt is passed down to our children. She did advocate for more fire protection spending however. One fellow did ask about the fire protection new apparatus fund which increased from $117,000 to $123,000 (their capital improvement did decrease from $27,600 to $24,500). There was a large turnout of fire protection people and Delpha Very came to their quick defense as well (guess who wants their votes?) . Their answers were sincere however and they have a strong belief that they need this money and that their budget increase is minimal. The same fellow asked about the contingency fund and was there need for this since there could be allowable emergency expenditures under Prop 46. It was explained that the emergency expenditures under Prop 46 could not be claimed until the following year (someone correct me here if I am wrong). Once again, the same brave young fellow also asked about the large land aquisition fund increase. It was claimed that the funds were being replenished because they had been spent this past year and that there is knowledge of more land becoming available. The benefits of aquiring land were discussed appropriately. Surprisingly, there was little asked of the education budget. The audience was rather subdued. Pathetic if you want my opinion. Maybe it was the heat? Everyone was professional and courteous though. Meeting over by 21:30. Let the cutting begin!
Colchester’s $48 million Budget Proposal (Grand List increased 41% after re-eval)
Colchester is approximately twice the student and total population of Woodstock.Town budget:
2006-07: $13.87 million.
Proposed 2007-08:$14.19 million.
Percentage increase: 2.32%.Education budget: 4 schools with Bacon Academy (958 2005-06 students) as the public high school, preK-12 3229 students, $9060 spending per pre-K-12 pupil in 2004-2005.
2006-07: $31.9 million.
Proposed 2007-08:$33.8 million.
Percentage increase:5.95%.Current tax rate: 32.47 mills.
Proposed 2006-07 tax rate: 24.5 mills.
Proposed tax rate increase: 1.49 mills.Major education increases:
School staffing,$82,397.
Athletic program reinstatements, $50,925.Major education decreases:
0.2 full-time art teacher,$24,254.
0.2 full-time music teacher, $13,998.
Grade 5 teaching position, $54,962.
Thanks for the report. I am glad someone took the time and made an effort to present the current budget in a factual and detailed manner. Now if the BOF holds true to past practice the BOE will be required to reduce its’ budget proposal by about 75% of the $836,919 resulting in a cut of $627,689.25.
This would leave 25% to cut from the Town Budget leaving them with a $209,229.75 deficit. I am in doubt that the BOF would have the intestinal fortitude to change the “split” in any way shape or form. I wonder if anyone has done any research on how long the current “split” of the revenues received by the Town have been divided up this way? Since the taxpayers of town have chosen to not alter or repeal Prop.46 we are about to see another budget season that will result in some dramatic cuts in both the BOS and BOE budgets. Let’s see where the cuts begin and who suffers the most. I am sure that the Woodstock Public Schools (and not the Academy) will be feeling the pinch again this year. How sad. How long will this situation be allowed to continue? In the words of that wisest of sages, (my wife) “You will be long gone from this Earth when they (the townspeople) figure this out.” I pray that just this once she is wrong.
I was unable to attend. We should have held a referendum on whether or not we should take care of our state and federal mandates, or allow the Selectmen to act like we have a big government. We need to take care of what is mandated first need and then see if there is any pie left for what we want. And if I hear one more person in the Town Hall say “but where are the parents?” I am going to explode. The Parents are home, clueless and doing their jobs, and unaware (YET) that their Selectmen are pulling a fast one AGAIN instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing. Just wait till election time folks.
Where are the parents?
Well, I was actually in Washington DC for the day working. Is it hard to believe someone must travel outside Woodstock to earn a living? I have attended meetings before, and frankly, always felt them to be an enormous waste of time. What ever happens after people make comments? Nothing. Anyone for some innovation in the government process? Internet discussion boards for BOF, BOE, Selectman? Ths way EVERYONE could have input…regardless of people’s schedules? Hey – elected officials- how about utilizing Woodstockctcafe? You might actually stimulate a real conversation? It is easy to attend on-line meeting/forums. How about internet surveys or voting- even if its non-binding- certainly might help…particularly if our elected member actually listened. my 2 cents
Yes Ken where were the parents? I’ve been a critic of the fire dept. budget, but I have to hand it to those guys. A bunch of them came out and made a case for their budget requests. They had obvious support from Delpha and audience members. Questions were answered appropriately. It would have been nice to have seen a little rally of education supporting parents to back Lindsey Paul, who by the way, Woodstock should be proud of to have as one of its shining stars.
Does the tuition proposed by the academy at $9425/student include such things as busing and special education? How about the per pupil spending on the schools they were comparing themselves to, did they include busing and special education? I’m just curious as not doing apples to apples comparisons would seem to be normal operating procedure for several groups in town. If the numbers don’t include the same services, any comparisons between them is worthless.
Given
3A and 4B you cannot come to the conclusion that
3A B.
As far as the emergency expenditures in Prop 46 not being available until the following year, the only thing Prop 46 says about them is they are an exception to the annual budget limits and they are to be voted upon at a town meeting. Any restrictions about them happening in a following year has nothing to do with Prop 46 as written.
Thanks.
Bowman, Take Canterbury for example (above in the block). That education budget includes busing and all special ed costs for the entire K-12 system and the per pupil spending is a simple calculation of the total education budget divided by the numer of pupils (bonded construction costs are excluded from the education budget because these are fixed assets of the Town). The cost per pupil in Canterbury is averaged for the entire K-12 system, so the average cost per pupil reported by the State is the same regardless of whether the student is in 12th grade or first grade. These calculations can be found at the following URL: http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/dist0506/district.htm
These are district calculations for all schools together within the town (Canterbury has 4). If you look at the same information on a school by school basis, the state does not provide the cost per pupil for each individual school. The state provides the cost per pupil for the K-8 system of Woodstock. When I re-did the calculations, I concluded that the transportation costs and SPED costs of the Academy where left in the K-8 budget.
To answer your question, the $9425 (2004-05) does not include these transportation costs or SPED costs that are separate line items in the BOE budget (separate from Academy tuitions). Certainly I am open to correction, if anyone can support a different answer.
Tax: thanks for the report. It was a very civil meeting and if 5% of the people that were in town attended we would have needed a larger meeting place. We can surmize that a large majority of residents weren’t off on business trips. I would guess that most parents view the education as good and the baby sitting as excellent, so that works.
1. The Academy and the BOE presented their budgets very well with all the required info.
2. ‘Less than impressive’, that’s an understatement when it came to MW presenting the Gov’t budget.
3. ‘Challenging her understanding of the process’, it was fully apparent that she doesn’t. We forget she has never been a manager or employer who did have to go to wasteful meetings and give a sales pitch for something she doesn’t know or understand.
4. The firemen don’t vote, unless it concerns their toys and or department needs. Then the call to arms goes out and they follow the flashing blue lights, hey, that may get them to the voting booths! Remember, their charge is to serve and protect and they were there to protect their money so it could serve them.
5. Open space doesn’t produce children. It is cheap to educate open space. We must remember that there is an underlying feeling in most rural towns that says we are big enough. We have ours and we don’t want you to. Purchasing open space does slow growth since large tracts of land usually don’t all come to market all at once. A concern should be that the town is usually partnering with the State to by development rights, not land. It would be nice if we purchased land, land for potential future use by the town. We will continue to grow no matter what and sooner or later we will require more support systems, lets look at a 5, 10, 15 an 20 year plan. Lets stop mandating or at least limit open space developments and start taking ‘fee in lieu of’ in order to build our land purchasing (account) power.
Look to the bright side, finally the weather is improving.
Meghan, Great points and your wit is appreciated as well. Could you expound on the “fee in lieu of” comment?
Looking at the k-8 proposed budget, I see a cost for special ed. at $1,595,095(K-8 only). Below that is All H.S. related costs of $5,769,339 which may or may not include the HS SPED costs. Good question. Perhaps worthy of asking at tonights BOE meeting. As far as transportation, the BOE budget does not give a grade level except for SPED transportation which they note as “includes all transportation for SPED). On the Academy budget, which is a lot less specific than the BOE budget, there is a pie chart for total budget distribution. None include SPED or transportation costs.
When a developer submits a plan for sub-division they are required to designate 50% of the buildable property to open space. Termed an open space sub-division. This land is then controlled by 1. a land owners association, 2. a trust, ie. Joshuas Trust or 3. a developer can retain the property but at $0 value. It is now un-buildable and really has no specific value other than low impact recreation and asthetics.
If a developer is allowed to present and develope what could be termed a conventional sub-division using 2.5 acres min. per lot they would be required to pay for the value of the 50% that they didn’t have to give away. There is a statute that covers this including the formula to determine the value.
Doing a FILO keeps all of the property on the Grand List as a developed building lot where the open space has no (cash) value and taxes are reduced at best. Some will argue (quid pro quo) that the property surrounding the open space is taxed at a higher rate but that is un-true.
Taking the FILO and putting it in the land purchasing account gives us money from developers and keeps land on the Grand List.
Tax,
Sorry I didn’t elaborate further, earlier, my daughter came in from the Academy and I’m getting ready for my weekly weekend trip to the north country.
Think and look it over and maybe we can delve in further next week. I’m sure someone will add their 2 cents too.
Enjoy!
Thanks Meghan. Have a great weekend!
Admin trois,
I understand the problem on comparing the WA cost per pupil v. other high schools in the state. I had found much of the same sources and problems as you have. In the end based on the information available on the Internet, it is just impossible to do a good comparison. Even if you come up with a method for how much transportation and special education cost should be allocated to the Academy you would still be comparing the Academy cost per pupil to other town’s cost per pupil K-12.
Presumably individual schools have their own budgets that are then submitted to the towns for approval. From there they are then are rolled up into the state figures. The only way to get a good comparison is to contact a sample of high schools from across the state and get their individual budgets for the past several years. You then could take out whatever line items are needed (sp ed, busing, etc) to make sure that you are comparing the same services and find your result.
Thanks.
Bowman – Woodstock Academy prepares a cost comparison with several area high schools, so they have these costs. I understand the Academy leaves out their Transport/SPED cost, but the BOE has these costs separated for K-8 and the Academy. So take Academy cost per student , add Academy Transport/Sped costs pe student. The result is the Academy moves from the low end of the range to the high end of the range among area high schools.
But total costs must be adjusted for interrelated capital, financing and life cycle costs to be meaningful. Further, the Academy absolute/relative cost is not the real point. It is the imbalance in new funding each year between K-8 and the Academy under a gradually constricting fiscal constraint (i.e., shrinking pie). And the proof is in the pudding – the Academy is expanding staff, payroll, facilities and programs while K-8 is contracting same.
The Academy’s claims that this results from their greater efficiency and superior management – like their claims of academic excellence – are simply not supported by any data or information.
Meghan – I think any developer would attest that a piece of land is worth the number of buildable lots times the value per lot less infrastructure cost. The current subdivision formula was designed to be neutral relative to lot yield so does not impact land value. In fact, I just had a discussion with a developer the other day who acknowledged that smaller lots in one conservation subdivision were worth more than larger lots in a standard subdivision located within 1/2 mile. This point is also demonstrable in many planning studies, including one distributed to the PZC a few months ago.
Regarding Fee in Lieu – state law caps the fees at such a low point that it is a small fraction (4-5%) of the market value of the land. This means 20-25 acres of conservation land in a subdivision would have to be given up to purchase one acre of replacement land; not a good trade except in extreme circumstances.
Taxpayer Too,
I agree. My intent was to point out that if they indeed want to compare their cost per student to other local high schools, a scheme such as I laid out is how they would have to do it to actually have an apples to apples comparison. It doesn’t sound like the one presented in the BOF meeting fits that bill.
Thanks.
“Fire protection increased from $117,000 to $123,000″
I recently moved to Woodstock and bought a home I am also
a full time Firefighter/EMT in S.E. CT. I was concerned at a comment made on the blog regarding the Woodstock Fire Departments budget increase….(see new article by “New Resident…”. Admin)