Chatham Central Schools budget

Budget Update August 11, 2010

2010-08-11T20:58:00.000-04:00

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

2010-04-23T21:31:00.004-04:00

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

2010-03-24T11:14:00.002-04:00

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

2010-01-05T21:10:00.003-05:00

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!

Capital proposal - Board of Education meeting Oct. 13, 2009

2009-10-14T17:02:00.000-04:00

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!!!

Capital Proposal - Board of Education meeting Oct. 6, 2009

2009-10-14T17:00:00.000-04:00

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.

Final Budget Information

2009-05-13T18:31:00.011-04:00

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!

Board of Education meeting April 21, 2009

2009-04-21T20:35:00.004-04:00

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.

Board of Education meeting April 7, 2009

2009-04-08T07:48:00.003-04:00

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.

Summary of 3-10-09 Board meeting

2009-03-11T08:09:00.027-04:00

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%.

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.

Chatham schools 2009 - 2010 budget

2009-03-08T19:52:00.010-04:00

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.

Budget vote May 20, 2008

2008-05-11T14:20:00.010-04:00

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.

Board of Education meeting March 11, 2008

2008-03-12T09:48:00.002-04:00

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.

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 2-26-08

2008-02-27T10:56:00.011-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Final Vote Resutls

2008-01-25T07:12:00.000-05:00

Prop 1: Yes – 190; No – 1,016

Prop 2: Yes – 173; No – 1,024

VOTE RESULTS!!

2008-01-22T21:46:00.000-05:00

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

Proposition 2 was 980 NO, 164 YES

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

Thanks to all who helped bring about this result.

Editorial in today's Independent

2008-01-18T21:05:00.000-05:00

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

Board presentation Jan. 15, 2008

2008-01-15T21:29:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

Here is the text of the flyer:

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

To the residents of the Chatham Central Schools District regarding the

Chatham Central Schools $35 million facilities improvement proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update coming shortly

2008-01-09T18:40:00.001-05:00

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

More information coming soon

2008-01-01T18:31:00.000-05:00

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

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

Facilities vote on Jan. 22, 2008

2007-12-22T08:05:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

When and where is the vote?

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

Who can vote?

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

You must be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-01T08:41:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

2007-11-25T17:48:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 11-8-07

2007-11-18T17:51:00.000-05:00

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

More information will be added to this blog shortly.

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 10-23-07

2007-10-24T09:04:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Education meeting Oct. 23, 2007

2007-10-20T15:13:00.000-04:00

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

Reply to Board of Education FAQ's

2007-10-12T20:40:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE on Oct. 9 Board Meeting

2007-10-09T21:35:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT: Board Resolution for Oct. 9 meeting

2007-10-09T13:25:00.000-04:00

The board has a resolution proposed for a vote tonight which reads:

"R.28 BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Education accept the Long Range
Facilities Plan (LRFPC) Report recommendation in its entirety, as goals to be
accomplished by the District by the year 2020."

This is entirely premature, ignores the sentiments expressed by voters, and binds future boards and voters to this plan.

It is possible that the board tonight may modify the wording to make it seem less like a "done deal" for the entire $47 million proposal. Come to the meeting!!! 6:30 in the high school library.

Front Page Coverage!!!

2007-10-02T13:42:00.000-04:00

Today's Independent has a front page article on this blog and the budget. Please buy the paper or read the article at http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?BRD=248&dept_id=462341&newsid=18872836&PAG=461&rfi=9

Please forward the link to anyone who might be interested.

Board of Ed meeting 9-25-07

2007-09-26T07:16:00.000-04:00

The proposed capital budget was not discussed at this meeting.

There was a well-done presentation by CCS student Jack Kervin (I hope I have his name right) and science teacher Sandy Fischer regarding the use of green energy techniques within the facilities. Some can be implemented regardless of the outcome of the capital project and others are more involved. A board member commented that some energy-saving steps can be taken immediately at no cost such as turning off lights that seems to be on all the time regardless of need, and turning off the computers in the computer lab at night. I see no reason why this cannot be done by simple directive from the Board or Superintendent to the staff.

I expect there will be significant discussion of the capital budget at the next meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 9.

Architect's $47MM proposal 9-10-07 (click page to enlarge)

2007-09-20T23:05:00.000-04:00

Fair Disclosure

2007-09-12T19:38:00.000-04:00

This blog is not intended to present a neutral viewpoint of the capital expenditure proposal.

Board of Education meeting 9-11-07

2007-09-12T18:33:00.000-04:00

The superintendent and architect presented a summary of the proposal. A number of comments were made, pro and con. Most of the negative comments revolved around the relationship between the capital proposals and their effect on educational goals. Many of the commenters seemed to think that much of the money was being spent in ways that would not directly impact the student body's education. Particular reference was made to the amount budgeted for air conditioning, driveway/parking lot, and other items not directly related to basic education.

There were also comments regarding the effect on taxation, and that if the full capital proposal were to pass, taxes would increase by 15% (although the proposal handout seemed to indicate 15.56 if I'm interpreting it correctly) per year (not compounded - i.e., a set fixed increase every year until the required bond issue is retired). This is in addition to the normal operating budget increase which was estimated by the financial consultant (sorry, didn't get his name) as 5% per year (compounded), although this is less than the district saw last year.

In addition, a commenter presented to the Board a well-thought out critique. While a number of points were made, the key point I took away was that the presentation and architectural analysis was given by entities "solely concerned with the presentation's monetary acceptance." There was no second opinion, no second cost estimates, no second pair of eyes. The architect that did the study was the architect for the Taconic Hills project. Not surprising that our costs of $47MM (million) was in line with theirs.