During last budget season (as you know) the economy was pretty tight and many towns cut their education budgets. Woodstock was one of those towns that made such a cut at the 11th hour.
A few months later last September (or thereabout) the state of CT looked around and saw all of the reduced town education budgets and the state didn’t have the money to make up for it. I don’t know exactly what they were thinking but I’d like to believe that they thought all the cuts to education spending weren’t a good thing. So they told the towns whose education budgets for this school year are lower than they were last school year (that would be us) that if they didn’t put that money back into the budget they would cut the state educational matching funds at a ratio of 2:1 of the amount lower. Since Woodstock was $90K lower this school year than the prior school year’s budget, the state was threatening to claw back $180K.
Interestingly enough when we were putting together this school year’s budget last spring we were told by the BoF to come in with a 0% increase. That is exactly what we did and if it was left at that there would have been no problem. Unfortunately at the 11th hour at a BoF meeting one of the regular members was a few minutes late and his seat was filled with an alternate. The BoF members then decided to cut the education budget lower than the 0% increase they had asked for and that was what was sent to the voters, thus setting up this scenario.
This town as a whole for too many years has been trying to get away with paying as little as possible in taxes. In today’s Woodstock Villager there was an editorial from Ray Lamoureux. Ray states that he is new to town and recently had some flooding issues and was amazed that our volunteer FD didn’t have hoses long enough or the needed pumps. Despite not having great visibility into their budget I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that the WVFD are in a similar situation trying to keep minimum service levels with high capital expenses. So no, Ray’s experience doesn’t surprise me.
For years the different groups in town have struggled under the restrictive cap of Prop 46. Different interests are fighting for a larger slice of a pie that is just too small for all needed services. We cut programs and attack each other for that larger slice. As long as we continue to fight among ourselves for that larger slice nothing will change and the people who seem to only want to pay as little taxes as possible, can just sit back, stir the pot every once in a while, and watch us do their work for them. The answer is not to fight to get a bigger piece of the little pie for education but to work to increase the size of the pie itself. The Woodstock Academy sees this which is part of the reason for the foundation. Say what you want about if you think the foundation will be successful but they have the foresight to see the need to try and increase the size of their pie. We need to work to do the same.
Prop 46 is designed not to allow this to happen. It is designed to “starve the beast” and keep the different groups in Woodstock (WPS, town hall, fire department, Woodstock Academy, open space, etc) fighting among ourselves for a pie that is just too small. There is a reason why our mill rate is so low and we have so few town services. At some point those of us who see a need for those services, such as education, need to say enough is enough and get rid of prop 46.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Go after the PA 490 abusers and you wouldn’t have to raise taxes or abolish Prop 46. Why should I have to pay more in taxes when many many people in town pay much less because they have their land inappropriately placed in PA 490–and get away with it? This is the biggest collective scam going, which is why you’ll never hear a word about it.
Arlan,
We have heard about it in the past yet no one ever wants to talk specifics. I have a hard time with this because it seems like a lot more hand waving to get people riled up against each other so nothing will ever change. I do in general have a problem with people claiming that it is someone else who should be paying and not themselves. We all should be willing to step up to the plate and do our share. Every one of us, including people like me who have no land under PA 490, are enjoying an extremely low mill rate while we as a community barely provide adequate town services.
It’s time for us to stop complaining about why other people should pay more or why one part of town government should take funds from some other part of town government because there just isn’t enough to go around. It is time for us as a community to take responsibility and fulfill our civic obligation, all of us.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Arlan – Can you provide a specific and detailed illustration of what a “PA 490 Abuser” looks like and what specific actions/behavior and/or ownership structure and use of that land would constitute “land inappropriately placed in PA 490″? Are there specific requirements under the Rule?
I ask in good faith because it seems like all avenues are covered: a sale triggers not only ALL ‘back taxes’, but a big enough penalty to make it undesireable to use 490 if there is a liklihood of a sale during the 10-year period, etc. When I bought and sold land one instance was my purchase of a decent size piece (40+ acres well-suited for home construction/development) which was already in this Open Space status, but my simple purchase of the property not only violated it’s 490 status (and I had to start the time period from square/ day one to take advantage of that status), BUT the Seller had to pay not only ALL taxes they would have paid as if they had never used 490 land but ALSO a substantial Penalty. That Penalty was large enough to make it unreasonable financially to buy and sell under 490 and simply pay the Penalty – it makes better financial sense to leave it out of 490.
That is, when someone puts land in Open Space but then sells it a few years later, they pay even more to the town than if they had never put the land in 490 status to begin with. The incentives are obvious (especially for farms with great land for development, but who will never sell for that purpose – they are taxed for the land’s actual use (farming) and not based on it’s Appraised Value (which is affected by development and all those ‘house farms’ popping up).
I don’t understand how that system can be abused in a way that doesn’t generate sufficient penalties paid to the town making up for it all (based on a sale the owner was always entitled to make anyway).
Con–Only if it is sold before 10 years. After that there is no penalty. How sweet is that? Even sweeter is a single family home sitting on over 5 acres that can qualify despite that it could never be subdivided. Must be nice, eh? Even more irritating is that there are at least 150 properties with less than 5 acres getting PA-490 tax breaks! Or what about wetlands that can never be developed regardless that are on PA-490? Or property that is bought for an investment or for privacy that is put on PA-490 with no intention of developing it regardless. So before you start talking about increasing taxes on the rest of us, better first start addressing those who abuse PA-490 and are not paying their fair share. Further, changes in the ordinance making it a greater than 25 acre minimum would serve the town better in preserving open space while getting the proceeds of fair taxation from everything else. My guess is that many builders have many buildable lots (less than 10 acres) all wrapped up in PA 490 that they can easily hold onto for greater than 10 years and then build away without any regard for preserving open space–even though they will tell you that PA 490 is necessary for preserving open space. Its not. It only delays building which may actually be convenient in harsh economic times like this (hence it acts as a tax shelter). Its all very convenient isn’t it?
Further, @Kevin: All towns across the state are experiencing the same fiscal concerns as Woodstock and their schools/governments are being forced to make drastic cutbacks. Guess what?? They don’t have Prop 46!! So its naive to think that by merely eliminating Prop 46 that all of Woodstock’s woes will go away. The problem is much deeper.
Hi Kevin:
Does the current approved BOE budget for ’10/11 take into account the $90,000 that was just added in. I saw that the increase from ’09/10 to ’10/11 was around $65,000. Will we need to add $25,000 back in to avoid a loss in State Funds?
Regards,
Frank
Arlan,
Woodstock does not fully fund town services is good times as well as bad, this isn’t a factor of the current macro situation as your statement would seem to imply. The infighting between government groups scrambling for scarce funds also long preceded this situation. We *always* starve town government and keep our mill rate among the lowest in the state. Prop 46 is the mechanism that assures that this will happen even as the economy starts moving back in a good direction. Woodstock is not a poor community yet we run our government services on a shoestring budget as if we were.
I’m curious, what exact function do you think prop 46 serves?
Frank,
I’ve been out of the country an haven’t been to a full board meeting for a few months. It’s a good question, I’ll check on it for you.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
I disagree. I think the town services are well funded. In fact, there is probably room to cut. We are fortunate that Woodstock has conservatively maintained a taxation level which is affordable while being able to provide basic services. Prop 46 ensures this and has served this town well. The countries, states, cities, and towns across the world who have had irresponsible (liberal) tax and spend policies are now facing catastrophic fiscal situations as a result. So instead of berating the taxpayers of Woodstock and insisting that Prop 46 be eliminated, you should be grateful for what we do have as a result of being frugal all these years. In fact, you should be pointing your fingers at the federal and state governments and unions who have squandered tax dollars and have handed us hoops of expensive unfunded mandates to jump through at the cost of compromising our ability to provide fiscally responsible and worthy town services. Go after those who have caused this crisis, not good hardworking taxpayers in Woodstock.
Arlan,
You state that you “think the town services are well funded. In fact, there is probably room to cut.” However, the majority of town’s in CT disagrees with that assessment in terms of educational spending. We are 162 out of 169 towns in net current expenditures per pupil:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/dgm/report1/cpse2007/nceadm.pdf
This is why we can’t afford programs such as foreign language immersion. This is why we can’t send all of Woodstock’s children to Pre-K. This is why we run our busses until they are literally rusting out from under our kids. We don’t have the funding.
The town’s capital plan is a bit of a joke because it is almost never funded. Mostly year after year the items to be purchased remain the same and the years at the top of the columns change. Maybe next year… When we do purchase capital items it is mostly from our operating budget, generally a bad idea.
You state that there is probably room to cut. What would you cut and why?
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
That should be “towns in CT disagree”… Sigh…
Kevin,
If we are so underfunded compared to other school, why is it that all these other schools have the same kind of fiscal problems we do despite not having Prop 46? And why is it that our kids perform comparitavely well to theirs?? This is the million dollar question that liberals just can’t answer. I’ll give you a hint: More money doesn’t make better schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html
Please take the time to read this editorial.
In the article, Brooks mentions a book called “What Money Can’t Buy,” by Susan E. Mayer of the University of Chicago. I suggest you consider reading this as well. I think it will give you the reality check you are looking for.
AS to the Pre-K, make parents who want this, pay for it.
School buses. Pay to ride.
Foreign language. End the SPICE program, get rid of the coordinators, and you got yourself funds for a foreign language department. Its all about priorities Kevin. Every year I hear about the need for assistant priciples, but hear very little about foreign language teachers.
Setting priorities, recognizing that parents, not taxpayer funded government schools, are responsible for educating their children, and the acceptance that more money does not improve outcomes will bring us much more success, less frustration, and less “infighting” that you are working to prevent than the current policies. Sadly, liberals lack this kind of common sense and have thus gotten us into the predicament we are in.
Arnel,
The opinion piece you linked to says nothing different than what I and others here had said again and again. There are factors outside the school that impact education that you can’t buy your way out of. That is why it does no good to throw increasingly higher amounts of educational dollars at inner city children. The factors that are stopping them from advancing are generally external to the school.
However, that does not mean that money doesn’t matter. Let me ask a question, do you think that we can adequately educate America’s children without spending a single dime? If you think we can, I’d certainly like to hear your justification. If you acquiesce that some level of funding is required then we are simply quibbling over what level of funding can be used for a particular group of children before we start running into diminishing returns.
You rightly point out that our children do well for the amount we spend on them, this is due as you point out to cultural factors that exist (or at least a general lack of major bad ones), the strength of our teaching staff, the strength of our administration (foresight to ask for strategic positions such as the coordinators). With all this we only do average in the state. This isn’t good enough. We are getting our lunch eaten educationally by foreign countries. It may seem all well and good to nickel and dime our nation’s most important strategic asset (a highly educated workforce) now but our nation is slowly paying for this shortsightedness. We can either make some short term sacrifices while making strategic investments in our nation’s future or the United States will continue to pay the price.
Just some other miscellaneous items:
-We are required by the state to pay for transportation
-The BoE has seriously been discussion foreign language immersion since I’ve been on the BoE. I’ve never heard a serious discussion about assistant principles
-Not all families can afford to send their children to PK
-Yes it would all be easier if all families had the resources to educate their children and the ability to do it and there were no kids without families. However, that is not the reality of the world we live in. That’s the problem with hardcore fiscal libertarianism (the philosophy you seem to be arguing for), it doesn’t muck concern itself with realities, only ideals.
-If you think I’m a liberal, you haven’t actually met one. Nothing personal against liberals.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Arnel, You are Taxpayer. I’ve told you tooo many times to stick to one handle. Don’t use multiple handles. Admin
Of course money matters. One, only in so far as it can be spent without being fiscally irresponsible and two, in the ability for it to be spent in the most efficient and prioritized manner.
I believe that countries who have -or will have- a competive advantage in their educational systems will be those who learn to prioritize and allocate accordingly.
America’s ability to do excell in this is confounded by a number of self-inflicted faults. One of which is a liberalism that has created a weakend culture of mediocrity that prioritizes backwards and allocates accordingly. This mediocrity subverts personal responsiblity, hard work, and initiative and replaces it with entitlement, laziness, and false expectation.
Another self-inflicted fault, ironically, is a capitalism-run-wild, where greed, immediate gratification, commercialism, and “glamour” have jaded what is truly valuable–getting an education, moral/ethical behavior, honest hard work, living within one’s means, and pride in one’s country.
Between the two extremes there still exists a central balance composed mostly of middle class working families, not unlike we have here is Woodstock. They are the future, but they are exploited, over worked, mis-represented, over-taxed, and little priority placed on them.
As to the other issues,
1-I have seen in prior BOE budgets over the years positions for assistant principles which are then axed because of budget trimming. I have never seen a position for a foreign language instructor.
2- Families who cannot afford pre-k don’t get it. (sorry)
3- I don’t have to meet you to know you are a liberal.
4- You never answered my question regrding Prop 46 and why towns without it have the same fiscal problems we do.
5- You never addressed my comment about laying off the SPICE teacher and the coordinators in exchange for a foreign language department. Thoughts?
Arnel, a Tax, whatever you swap your handle to,
1) Recently? As in sent to the BoF as an actual part of the budget instead of in the list of needs of a good school (which also includes foreign language immersion)? Maybe I don’t recall.
2) “Scr#w you, I got mine” and other short term thinking. Narcissism and selfishness. Whatever happened to a culture of of community, of service, of self sacrifice? Maybe instead of asking yourself what you are owed and what’s yours maybe you should ask yourself what you owe to your community, your country. A lot of people have sacrificed for you and maybe you should think about giving back. I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind your type of thinking.
3) Then by your criteria most Republicans are liberals because I haven’t said anything here about the importance of education that hasn’t been said by most Republicans in ofice I’ve heard.
4) I have answered this question. All towns are currently facing fiscal problems due to macro economic factors. Prop 46 isn’t a problem in down times because everyone has financial difficulty. Of course then the economy is up they suddenly don’t have these problems yet we still do.
5) Your thoughts on cutting off my left hand so I can attach my right hand? I’d rather try and find a way to have both hands.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Kevin,
1- I clearly recall the subject of assistant principles being brought forward by adminsitration several times, but never foreign language iinstructors.
2-What happened to the community of sacrifice and service? You’ve got to be kidding? The answer: It was exploited by the selfish, the lazy, and those with a liberal political agenda. As a result, good faith in people, programs, and governments has been lost. The onus is not on me to give back, but on others to prove they are worth it. Nor is it my duty to provide for others who make irresponsible decisions, like having children they can’t afford. In the meantime, I play by the rules, make sound financial decisions, raise my own children, work for a living, pay my mortgage and taxes, and work in a profession that demands unprecedented compassion. No one deserves to ask anymore from me, particularly those who don’t meet these same ideals for themselves.
3- By reading your writings and your opinions over the last several years, I have learned a lot about you. Most of which I sincerely respect and admire, but also some which I consider to be the naivete of liberal thinking.
4- Removing Prop 46 will solve nothing so to make it an issue is bogus.
5- Case in point about liberal thinking: Wanting it all without recognizing the need to sacrifice for priorities within a limited budget.
A Tax,
1) The administration is not the BoE. Even then, the administration has listed foreign language on needs of a good school.
2) We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. You are very good at ascribing motives and actions to people you never met. Those lazy pre-K age kids, they should pay for pre-K themselves. Obviously they have made some poor choices in the first few years of their lives. After all, everyone who is poor has made irresponsible financial decisions, what other possible explanation could there be? (bit of sarcasm there) Are you trying to say we have absolutely no interest as a society in ensuring our collective children have the resources needed to continue to make our country strong, even if some of them have made the unforgivable sin of being born to parents without a lot of financial means? Nice.
I’m sorry, just going to work and trying to influence the system to pay the minimum amount of taxes that you can possibly get away with isn’t exactly what I’d be boasting about as a citizen. To me it sounds a lot like an “it’s all about me” attitude.
4) It is necessary but not in and of itself sufficient.
5) We aren’t even in the same ballpark as wanting it all.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
I feel like Oliver Twist….
‘Please, sir, I want some more.’
The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupified astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.
‘What!’ said the master at length, in a faint voice.
‘Please, sir,’ replied Oliver, ‘I want some more.’
The master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.
The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Mr. Bumble rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,
‘Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!’
There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.
‘For MORE!’ said Mr. Limbkins. ‘Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?’
‘He did, sir,’ replied Bumble.
‘That boy will be hung,’ said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. ‘I know that boy will be hung.’
Nobody controverted the prophetic gentleman’s opinion. An animated discussion took place. Oliver was ordered into instant confinement; and a bill was next morning pasted on the outside of the gate, offering a reward of five pounds to anybody who would take Oliver Twist off the hands of the parish. In other words, five pounds and Oliver Twist were offered to any man or woman who wanted an apprentice to any trade, business, or calling.
‘I never was more convinced of anything in my life,’ said the gentleman in the white waistcoat, as he knocked at the gate and read the bill next morning: ‘I never was more convinced of anything in my life, than I am that that boy will come to be hung.’
Thanks and having a Dickens of a time in Woodstock
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Lol. Perhaps I am the artful dodger!