Results of budget and school board vote

Budget:

Yes                              626 (passed)

No                               257

Board seats

Coe                             362

Knight                         673 (elected)
Marks                         474 (elected)
Gilger                          351
Kelly                            551 (elected)
Day                             410
Conte                          511 (elected)
Miner                          416

 

2014 Budget and Board of Election vote

The annual budget vote and board election will be held on Tuesday, May 20 from 9AM to 9PM in the MED gym.

I attended the budget hearing on Tuesday (as well as a number of other budget presentations). The budget, which I support, calls for an increase in the tax levy of .66%, just a hair below the NYS tax cap for the district. If the budget is defeated, a revised budget can be proposed, or a contingency budget can be proposed. If the budget is defeated a second time, the board must adopt a contingency budget which requires the tax levy to be the same as last year, i.e., no increase in the levy at all.

A contingency budget limits certain types of spending and reduces the ability of the board to fund specified projects and programs while requiring the funding of others.

The board election has 8 candidates running for 4 open seats. I attended the candidates’ forum Thursday night in which each candidate was asked to respond to each of 8 questions in the League of Women Voters format. Here are my recommendations:

Jim Marks and Gail Day (both incumbents running for re-election). I have dealt with them over the past few years and while I don’t always agree with their positions, they are dedicated and hard-working board members.

 Ed Knight (incumbent running for re-election). He was appointed to fill an unexpired term. He has been relatively quiet at board meetings (as a new board member still feeling his way) but he handled himself well at the forum.

 Ted Miner. I think the board needs some diversity and Ted will bring that. He has some unusual and occasionally out-of-the-box ideas (along with a somewhat unique style of delivery) that I hope will stimulate the type of debate and consideration  that I have rarely seen at board meetings, and whose lack is and has been, in my opinion, a weakness of the board.

 

In summary:

 Budget: vote YES

Board election: Marks, Day, Knight, Miner

 

Board Meeting After Defeat of Proposal

Tuesday evening (Dec. 10) the Board of Education held a special meeting to discuss next steps following defeat of the capital proposal. While there was a relatively large turnout and a number of public comments both pro and con, it was mostly a reiteration of previous comments, although there was a lot of pressure to simply resubmit the proposal unchanged, with the expectation that parents will wake up and vote.

The Board appeared sincerely interested in understanding why the proposal did not pass. It is not clear what the next steps will be.

The Board’s architect mentioned that he believed the cost of the gym could be reduced by $500,000 by not increasing the height of the gym, which was necessary to have a full-size volleyball court.

The next regularly scheduled Board meeting is Jan. 7.

Follow-up to defeat of capital proposal

Last night (Tuesday, Dec. 3) the Board of Education held a special meeting to discuss next steps following defeat of the proposal.
 

Undoing the consolidation (i.e., not closing the middle school) was discussed but eliminated as an alternative for the same reasons it was decided to consolidate in the first place.

The second alternative discussed was going ahead with the consolidation but with no capital project. This was considered to be a last resort.

A third alternative was to put the same project ($13.8 million) unchanged up for another vote. All board members present weighed in and most did not think this advisable. The general consensus was to see if there were parts of the proposal that could be reduced or eliminated, and possibly split the proposal into two parts – a basic piece and a second piece (most likely the gym) that would depend on the first piece being approved. If the first piece were not approved by the voters, the second piece would not be implemented, even if it were approved.

The approximate time for a vote on the (presumably) revised plan would most likely be in March.

There will be a public comment period at next week’s (Dec. 10) board meeting. I will report after the meeting.

$13.8 million project proposal defeated

The vote was 668 against, 481 for (58% against).

Vote NO on the $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19, 2013

After careful consideration, I cannot support the Chatham Central Schools $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19 and will vote no. Here’s why:
 
First is the lack of transparency in the estimates. There is no breakdown of components of the various costs. Especially troublesome was the jump in total costs from $12.5 million to $13.8 million without a single word of explanation.

Secondly, and of nearly equal concern is the fact that more than ½ of the money will be spent before a single dime reaches an academic classroom, classroom supplies, or a teacher or teacher assistant. 52% of the money goes towards a gym, fitness room and parking/roadways.

Thirdly, the costs that were given for the gym and fitness room seem more worthy of 24 Hour Fitness or Planet Fitness rather than our modest-sized school district. Nearly $4.5 million for the gym and fitness room - compare that with the $9 million that the University of Michigan (with nearly 43,000 students vs. our current enrollment of 1158) will spend on their new athletic facility. The cost of the gym and fitness room is more than $3,800 per CCS student, more than 18 times the UMich cost per student.

Part of the $13.8 million cost will be met by using all of the district’s capital reserve funds of $2.07 million, leaving nothing in capital reserves. Since these reserves have been used and replenished from time to time in the past, it is not unreasonable to assume they will need to be replenished in the future. The only source of funds will be future taxes.

The proposal is being marketed as requiring no tax increase. I suspect, but do not have the data to prove, that if the reserves were not used to offset part of the costs, they would no longer be able to make this statement. In fact, if the costs of the proposal were scaled back, it is entirely possible that there could actually be a reduction in taxes, as other districts have been able to do.

In July the board revisited the proposal to see if there were any parts of it that could be scaled back, reduced, or eliminated. On August 13, the board decided that there was not a single part of the entire $13.8 million that was not 100% absolutely essential and could not be accomplished in a less expensive manner – there was not one cent of savings to be found!

The district has stated that if the capital proposal is defeated “a new consolidation blueprint would need to be developed which would involve making compromises and eliminating some of items [sic] that support our educational program.”

I find it hard to believe that this consolidation cannot be successfully completed at a lower cost without compromising our educational program. Let’s defeat this financially unrealistic proposal and hope we are presented with a more commonsense solution we can live with.

Vote NO on the Chatham Central Schools $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19.

Thank you.

David Levow

Radio Interview About The Consolidation Project

I was interviewed on Thursday, July 11 by Phil Grant, host of the morning show on our local community radio station WGXC, 90.7 FM. You can listen to it at

http://youtu.be/M_loJMavPEE

To Receive Notice of Blog Updates

If you do not already receive blog update notices and you would like to be added to the update list, send an e-mail to this address . No use of your address will be made other than for update notices.

Good news and bad news

The good news: at tonight's board meeting, the Option B gymnasium and related project ($13.0 million) was taken off the table, reverting to the Option A gymnasium project ($12.5 million).


The bad news: the cost has now increased to $13.8 million from $12.5 million.


But the really bad news is that not one single board member asked why the project has increased in cost by $1.3 million in two months, nor was any explanation given.

I am losing what little confidence I had left in the ability of the board to understand, critically examine and question the proposal.

To Receive Notice of Updates to the Blog

If you are not already receiving blog update notices and you want to be added to the update list, click here . No use will be made of your address other than for the updates. Also, click on the "comments" at the bottom of each post to add your own (anonymously if you like) and to read what others have said.

Note:
If you asked to be put on the list and I didn't confirm that I did so, your request may have been deleted as spam. I changed the e-mail address above to prevent deletion so please try again.

CCS Consolidation Study (closing the Middle School) and 2013-2014 Budget

At the April 16 meeting of the Board of Education, the tentative 2013-2014 budget was approved. It includes a tax levy increase of 3.60%. As you may know, the “2%” tax cap is not a fixed 2%. It is a starting point from which a number of adjustments can be made based on certain capital expenditures, retirement plan contributions and some other adjustments. For Chatham, the cap for 2013-2014 is actually 4.34%, so the proposed increase is within the cap, requiring a simple majority vote to pass on May 21, the date of the vote. If the proposed levy exceeded the cap, it would require a super-majority of 60% to pass. Much of the increase is due to state mandated retirement plan contributions.

 Overall, I think the proposal is reasonable and recommend voting for it.

 However, of greater long-term importance is the issue of closing the middle school.

 I attended the town hall meeting on March 28 regarding the possible closing of the middle school. On face value, closing the middle school will result in significant savings even with the multi-million dollar capital improvement proposals that would be required, but it is my opinion that upon deeper examination of these plans, these expenditures are excessive.

 Three options were presented:

Keep the middle school open (non-consolidation, called Option C), which would require capital improvements totaling $5.66 million

Close the middle school (consolidation, called Option A), which would require capital improvements of $12.47 million

Close the middle school (consolidation, called Option B), which would require capital improvements totaling $13.04 million.

 At its June 25 meeting, the board will decide whether or not to close the middle school. Whether they do so or not, any capital expenditures will have to be approved by the voters, probably in November.

The district’s financial consultant estimated that the capital improvements necessary to keep the middle school open (option C) would cost approximately $92 thousand on an annual basis to service the debt that would be incurred, while options A and B (closing the middle school) would result in net savings of $411 thousand (A) and $384 thousand (B). The savings in the latter two options would be the result of saving approximately $800 thousand in annual expenses by closing the building, along with state aid for part of the capital costs.

However, while these savings sound appealing, the are based on what are in my opinion extravagant expenditures well beyond what are necessary to maintain the educational standards we subscribe to.

When they put up the details of the various capital improvement options I had a sinking feeling of déjà vu. If you need a refresher or were not around at the time, read the blog posts beginning at the earliest ones in 2007 when the then-current board proposed $47 million in capital improvements. As a results of community response, it was scaled down to 2 separate proposals ($25 million and $10 million), both of which were defeated by margins greater than 5 to 1. The board then presented a single $6 million proposal, which was passed by the voters.

Many of the components in the current proposals sound to me like “nice to have” wish-list things but not critically required (gym additions/renovations, data/power/seating upgrades in the auditorium, cafeteria renovations in both MED and HS, etc.). I was surprised that option B ($13 million) includes expanding the MED gym to seating capacity of 700 (this in an environment that includes the current kindergarten enrollment of 72 students!).

The following graph and spreadsheet represent my projections of the enrollment. The figures in red are the actual current enrollment for 2012-2013, and they are carried forward at their current level until the present kindergarten graduates. The figures in black are enrollment projections made by the board’s consultant based on actual live births and estimates they have made. Note in particular the enrollment forecasted in 2015-16 of 1094 students, a decrease of 116 students or almost 10% from today. This year is important because the 2015-2016 school year is the earliest the middle school would close under either Option A or B, so we would be spending $12.5 or $13 million to build larger facilities to house a significantly declining population.

 

 



The Board's enrollment projections are given here:

http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/Facilities_Study/Enrollment_Projection_Report.pdf

Their study is dated November 2011, so the data I have used is more current and shows a larger decline than their study does.

 

 I am also concerned that that Option A ($12.5 million) includes almost $2.5 million for MED gym addition and renovations and Option B ($13.0 million) includes $2.9 million for an even larger gym! This latter option should never have seen the light of day – what were these people thinking? By the time these projects are completed the school population would have declined by nearly 10% from today. How many teachers would the additional $400,000 pay for? In fact, the gym expenses are far and away the largest items in those two proposals – is there some sort of reality disconnect or is it just me?

 

Furthermore, there are no specifications regarding the various improvements, no range of estimates suggesting different levels of improvements showing tradeoffs and costs. I find it hard to imagine we need to spend $2.5 or $2.9 million on a gym – there must be a cheaper way to do it if indeed we need to do it at all.

 

While I personally am somewhat on the fence about closing the middle school, perhaps leaning towards doing so, I am absolutely opposed to doing so along with either of the two options proposed without a very thoughtful examination and cost-benefit analysis by the entire board (as opposed to just the 3 member facilities committee) as to what is really necessary in terms of capital improvements. While closing the middle school under either proposal suggests cost savings, a more realistic capital improvement proposal could result in even larger cost savings. Can we achieve our goals without spending so much money?

 

Here is the link to the district’s information regarding the consolidation study:

 

http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/Facilities_Study/index.asp

Here are the details of the proposals:

 

Option C - keep middle school open (plus capital improvements of $5.66 million):



 

 

 

Option A - close middle school (plus capital improvements of $12.47 million):

 

 

 

Option B - close middle school (plus capital improvements of $13.04 million):

 



Budget Update August 11, 2010

At a special Board of Education meeting tonight, the tax levy was approved, based on the budget approved by the voters in May.

The process was complicated by the difficult economic and political climate, particularly due to the uncertainly regarding federal and state aid.

Based on the Superintendent's estimates that State aid will be higher than anticipated in May, the Board was able to reduce the increase in the tax levy. The original budget called for a 2.54% increase in the tax levy. The actual increase (subject to a computation of the exact amount) will be closer to 2% or 2.1%, with some additional amount going into the district's reserves.

There was much discussion regarding how to apportion the extra money and a compromise was reached to reduce the tax levy increase and to increase the district's reserves as well.

Final Budget Approved

At Tuesday's meeting, the Board of Education approved the budget that we will vote for on May 18. The budget amount totals $26,614,687, a .72% decrease from last year. Due to decreased state aid (the amount of which is still in flux), the tax levy will increase 2.54%. If state aid comes in better than estimated, the tax levy could possibly decrease, but if state aid is less than expected, the tax levy might increase and/or additional budget cuts would have to be made. Regardless of the breakdown between state aid and tax levy, the total spending cannot be more than is approved by the voters in May, assuming the budget is passed then. The Superintendent is confident that the budget projections are conservative and are based on estimates of state aid at the lower end of likely possibilities.

Included as part of the budget are funds to replace school buses which are being used more heavily than previously due to the one-bell system. In the past, school buses have been voted upon separately and the expense would have been in addition to the budget. If they were separate this year as in the past, the budget would actually be less than indicated above.

Additionally, the budget has been prepared without using any federal stimulus money, which will no longer be available. A number of school districts have used their stimulus funds to pay normal operating expenses, and when this money ends, they will have a big budget gap to fill. Chatham's stimulus money has been used for capital projects and has not been included in the operating budget, so when it ends, it will have no impact on our budget.

I support the budget proposal and recommend voting to approve it on May 18.

The budget calendar is available at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget/Budget%20Calendar%202010-11.pdf.

Chatham Central Schools budget for 2010-2011

At yesterday's Board of Education meeting the Superintendent presented the proposed budget for the next school year.

The Superintendent and the business office have been working very hard to keep costs down in light of declining enrollments and expected significant and ongoing reductions in state education aid. They have come up with a number of savings and efficiencies in various areas but have also found it necessary to reduce staff, partially through resignations and retirements but also though layoffs. By reconfiguring schedules and leveling class sizes, the district's core educational values will not be negatively impacted.

Overall, as a result, the total budget proposed represents a decrease from the current year of approximately .6%, but due to reductions in state aid (and the amount of the reductions has not yet been fully determined by the state), the tax levy will have to make up the difference.

As the budget proposal now stands, the tax levy would increase by 2.75%.

Some people have expressed concern that this is too high, since inflation this past year was negligible in many parts of the economy (although this may be misleading since part of the low inflation was due to falling housing prices). Should the Board need to reduce the tax levy increase, it would mean further cuts, most likely in staff, since this is the largest component of the budget.

Please take a moment to express your opinion (which is anonymous) by taking the survey on the left. I will forward the results to the Superintendent and the Board for their guidance. You can, of course, post your thoughts to this blog as well (also anonymously if you choose).

Proposed Capital Project Vote Jan. 12, 2010

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!