NewHartfordPlus.com

At their February 9 Special Meeting, the Board of Selectmen reviewed their draft Capital Project List which then was submitted to the Board of Finance Capital Subcommittee for their input.  First Selectman Dan Jerram said that the list (shown in the graphic at the bottom of this article) is the result of his talks with the various Town departments and commissions. The BOS discussed both capital and operational expenses and concluded by agreeing to set a preliminary goal of a 1% to 2% tax increase for the upcoming fiscal year 2012-2013. No draft of the Operational Expenses List was available at this meeting.

Following is a video of the discussion of the Capital Projects List, which is the 3rd and final video segment of the Special BOS February 9 meeting.

Click on the image above to watch the video on the NewHartfordPlus YouTube channel

Capital Projects List:

Click the download link to download a copy of the list: Draft of the Capitol Projects List. (12).

11:00 a.m., May 4 Update:

The unofficial returns given below are official: both budgets were passed by the number of votes given below.  To see a copy of the official results sheet, click on the following link: May 3 2011 Budget Referenda - Official Results (95).

10:15 p.m. Update:

Voters approved both budgets presented to them at referendum today. The unofficial totals are:

• Town Budget (includes Town Administration and New Hartford Public Schools budgets): Yes: 268, No: 87
• Regional # 7 Budget: Yes: 198, No: 156.

Below is the breakdown of votes for both budgets from both voting places.  District 1 is the New Hartford voting place and District 2 is the Bakerville voting place.

4 p.m. Update:

“A light turnout” is how Registrar of Voters Daria Hart and Lila Tuxbury characterized today’s voting on the two town budgets. “There have been about 118 – there’s two more – 120 people voting so far.” Daria said at 4:15 p.m. this afternoon. “And about the same number at South End,” Lila added.

As our reporter stood and chatted with Paul and Polly Pobuda of Pine Meadow who had just finished voting, a steady trickle of voters continued to come in, several of them dressed in business attire. The after-work voters were now arriving.

Polly and Paul Pobuda obligingly pose for our photographer after voting on the budget referendums being held today, Tuesday, May 3, in the Senior Center at Town Hall, New Hartford. Photo: Maria Moore

The Annual Budget Meeting was held yesterday evening at 7:00 p.m. The meeting followed the procedure that has evolved in New Hartford since 1990, when the town’s budget began to be automatically sent to referendum by the town’s Selectmen, and by so doing removing the voters ability to discuss and make changes to the budget before voting on the budget at the meeting or at referendum.

Following is the video of that 2011 Annual Budget Meeting which lasted less than 10 minutes. Below the video is a written account of that meeting, with our reporter’s attempt to introduce the budget for discussion at that meeting and Daria Hart’s introduction into the proceedings of a 1992 letter from then-Town Attorney Pickard which specified the steps to follow at the Annual Budget Meeting, one of which is the consideration of the budget during the meeting.

Video of 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

.

Report on the 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

.
The Annual Budget Meeting, which now lasts between 5-10 minutes, was sandwiched between the Board of Selectmen’s meeting last night. First Selectman Dan Jerram opened the selectmen’s meeting and then adjourned it for the Annual Budget Meeting. At the end of Annual Budget Meeting, the First Selectman again opened the Selectmen’s meeting.

For the most part, the Annual Budget Meeting followed what has become established as its normal path:

• Reggie Smith Jr. was elected the Moderator of the meeting.
• Reggie read the legal Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting (see a copy of the Notice below).
• Reggie then announced that in accordance with State Statute 7-7, the selectmen had removed Item # 1 from the agenda of the meeting; that is, the selectmen removed from the meeting the consideration of the budget, and with it, the ability of taxpayers present to directly cut or remove specific line items from the budget.

At this point, the normal procedure was interrupted by Maria Moore, a taxpayer in New Hartford and NHPlus’ editor/reporter, who made a point of order motion asking for the floor to be opened to discussion.  Reggie asked on what basis and our reporter answered to discuss the budget, as provided under State Statute 7-344.  Reggie responded: “While I as a citizen may or may not agree with you – and actually I do –  according to State Statute the Selectmen also have the authority to remove this item from the agenda therefore this item does not exist on this day and any questions on the item do not exist therefore we must move on to Item # 2.”  Our reporter then asked: “Even though by removing it you are breaking a state statute?” Reggie responded: “In accordance with this issue of 7-7, the Selectmen are not violating the law and I’m not going to discuss this further.”

At this point Daria Hart, Registrar of Voters and the unofficial Parliamentarian of our town meetings, said: “Point of Information.” At which Reggie said: “Sure.”  ”I thought that, based on a letter received in 1992, a letter received from then Town Attorney John Pickard, we have the option to discuss and vote, and to discuss and move the discussion to…”  Reggie cut Daria off at this point saying: “Returning to what the Selectmen have done, according to 7-7, they have the legal authority to remove that item  from the agenda, therefore at this time we are not going to take any more questions.  This item is closed as far as this Moderator is concerned.  Thank you for your time.”

With that, the meeting returned to its  normal procedure.  Reggie proposed the motion to move item # 2, the budget, to referendum.  Jamie Hall made the motion, Sue Lundin seconded the motion and hearing no discussion, Reggie called a vote and a strong “Aye” came back in response; the only one opposed to the motion was our reporter, Maria Moore.

The Board of Finance’s proposed budget, which was not submitted to consideration by taxpayers at the Annual Budget Meeting, is the budget that will be voted on by the taxpayers at the referendum on May 3.

Roll Call of the 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

As we did with last year’s Annual Budget Meeting, see our report of April 27, 20 10, we are including the roll call of those in attendance at this year’s Annual Budget Meeting.  Please note that the Annual Budget Meeting was to be immediately followed by a Board of Selectmen Meeting at which State Senator Kevin Witkos (Republican) was to given a presentation on the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year; this may have influenced the attendance of those at the Annual Budget Meeting.

Officials at the meeting:

• First Selectman Dan Jerram (R)
• Selectman Tom Klebart (D)
• Absent: Selectman Bruce Gresczyk (R)
• Town Clerk Donna LaPlante (D)

Moderator:

• Reggie Smith, Jr. (R), Board of Finance member

Taxpayers (from the left):

First row:

• Christine Hayward (not a New Hartford resident), administrative Assistant to the First Selectman
• Alesia Kennerson (Republican), Board of Finance member

Second row:

• Sue Lundin (party?), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed Chair
• Jim Jerram (party?), father of First Selectman
• Maureen Jerram (party?), mother of First Selectman
• Jamie Hall (Republican)
• Anne Hall (party?)

Second row:

• Maria Moore (Unaffiliated), editor/reporter NHPlus
• Daria Hart (Democrat), Registrar of Voters, unofficial Parlimentarian of town meetings
• Katie Fisk Natale (Democrat), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Unidentified taxpayer
• Unidentified taxpayer
• Noel Gauthier (Republican), Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed member

Back row:

• Dan LaPlante (Republican)
• Elaine Carmelich (Democrat), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Penny Miller (Republican)
• Steve Tuxbury (Republican), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Denton Butler (Republican)

Standing at the back of the Senior Center:

• Rob Jerram (Republican), Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed member, brother of First Selectman
• Carleen Jerram (Republican), wife of First Selectman
• Ben Witte (Republican), Board of Finance Chairman
• Annie Witte (Republican), town bookkeeper
• Lila Tuxbury (Republican) Registrar of Voters
• Gordon Ross (Republican), Town Treasurer
• Steve Nadeau (party?), Principal of New Hartford Elementary and Bakerville Schools

Note: Cameraman Bob Moore, (Democrat) NHPlus techie and husband of our reporter Maria Moore, was at the meeting as the cameraman and did not participate in the meeting or the voting.

Future Updates:

We will continue to report on the issue of the procedure being followed by the town’s Selectmen to bring the town budget to a vote.

1992 Letter from then-Town Attorney John (Jack) Pickard

.
The point of interruption made by Daria Hart was to officially introduce into the proceedings the May 1, 1992, letter from then Town Attorney John Pickard to then First Selectman Bruce Gresczyk.  The letter says:

“The steps which should be taken to remove the decision on the annual budget from the town meeting to a separate vote are as follows:

1.  Give notice of the Town Meeting at least five (5) days before and include in the call an item: “To consider and act upon the Town Budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992.”

2. Hold a Selectmen’s meeting at least five (5) days prior to the date of the Town meeting and vote to remove the above item on the call for submission to the voters in the manner provided in C.G.S. Sectin 7-7.

3.  At the Town Meeting the budget can be discussed, but no vote is taken.

The vote should be scheduled not less than seven (7) nor more than fourteen (14) days after the Town Meeting.  The question could be phrased as folows:

Shall that (stet) the Town appropriate the sum of $__________ as its budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992?

If you have any further questions, please call me.”

Below is a copy of that letter:

By: Maria & Bob Moore

Tomorrow evening’s Annual Budget Meeting is still on track to take place at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 26. However, if you do decide to go to that meeting, don’t be surprised if the proceedings don’t reflect the published Notice.

According to the published Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting, a copy of which was emailed by the First Selectman’s Office this afternoon (see copy below), the Notice includes the same two items that were approved by the Selectmen at their April 18 Special Board of Selectmen Meeting, even though at that same Special BOS Meeting, they immediately removed Item # 1 from the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting. Since no other agenda or Notice for this meeting has been publicized, the only way you would know that the agenda had been changed is by reading NewHartfordPlus or by going to the Town Clerk’s Office and asking specifically about the agenda for tomorrow’s Annual Budget Meeting.

Tomorrow’s meeting will not include Item # 1, the consideration of the town budget as proposed by the Board of Finance, and Item # 2 moves that proposed budget, not the budget acted upon by the voters, directly to referendum. We have been questioning the legality of moving the BOF’s proposed budget directly to referendum without it having been considered at the Annual Budget Meeting before being moved to a vote, as required by State Statute 7-344. This same question was asked 20 years ago by then-First Selectman Reggie Smith Jr. to the then-town attorney, Jack Pickard who had put together the town ordinance which allows this to happen. Attorney Pickard was of the opinion that the ordinance is not valid and that if challenged in court it would be held to be invalid. In his opinion letter dated July 24, 1990, he said:

“In my opinion, the ordinance is not valid. I do not believe the town meeting had the authority to enact an ordinance which conflicts with the statutory procedures for bringing matters to referendum…. In my opinion, the ordinance is in conflict with State Statute…”

This is what the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance base the current procedure of passing a budget in our town on, a procedure which is not reflected in the published Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting. We are continuing to challenge the validity of the ordinance and the departure by the Board of Selectmen from the process for passing a budget that is clearly outlined by State Statute. We will update this item as events develop.

Notice of Annual Budget Meeting mailed on April 25, 2011 by First Selectman's Office.

Note: We did not continue with a petition to present at the Annual Budget Meeting to follow the procedure as set out in the published Notice of Annual Budget Meeting because we were informed by the Town Clerk that she did not believe that State Statutes allow such a petition.

The following is a letter to New Hartford Taxpayers from Bob and Maria Moore:

When we, the town’s taxpayers go to the Annual Budget meeting this coming Tuesday, April 26, the official call to the meeting includes these two items:

1. To consider and act upon the town budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011.
2. Pursuant to Section 7-7 of the general statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1958, as amended, to adjourn said budget meeting at its conclusion and to submit item # 1 on the call of this meeting to be voted upon using voting tabulators on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Electors residing in the Voting District #1 shall vote at the New Hartford Town Hall, 530 Main Street in New Hartford. Electors residing in the Voting District #2 shall vote at the South End Fire House, 20 Antolini Road in New Hartford. Voters qualified to vote at town meeting who are not electors shall vote at their respective polling places. Absentee ballots will be available from the Town Clerk, 530 Main Street, New Hartford, CT and will be counted at their respective polling places. The question to be voted upon shall be placed on the ballots as:

“Shall the Budget of the Town of New Hartford including General Government, New Hartford Board of Education and Capital Expenditures, recommended by the Board of Finance for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2011, be accepted?”

Voters approving the question will vote “Yes” and those opposing the question will vote “No.”

So, why is it that when we go to the Town Budget Meeting there will be no budget for us to consider, as there always was prior to 1990?

Because the town’s Selectmen, in a Special Meeting, have voted to remove Item # 1, “To consider and act upon the town budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011″, from the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting.

At their Special Meeting on Monday morning, April 18, the Selectmen also adjourned the budget to referendum, another action reserved for the taxpayers under state statute.

Both these actions have been taken by the town’s Selectmen since the passing of an ordinance in 1990, even while the legality of that ordinance was questioned by then-town attorney, Pickard.

Can the town’s Selectmen vote to take away taxpayers’ rights given to them by State Statute?

At the recent Selectmen’s Special Meeting, Selectman Bruce Gresczyk said that he feels that the way the town is handling the budget (removing the ability of taxpayers to make changes to the budget at the Annual Budget Meeting and sending the budget directly to referendum) is illegal and that the ordinance should be done away with.

Item # 1 reflects the right of the voters to consider the budget as provided by State Statute; removing that item diminishes our rights as provided by State Statute.

We want the Annual Budget meeting to follow the legal format set out in the Notice of the meeting, that is, to have both items # 1 and # 2 included in the agenda of that meeting. We, as taxpayers, can petition to include items to be discussed at Town Meeting. In this case, the petition is to have included in the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting the same items as those on the legal Notice of  that Meeting.  This will allow us, the town’s taxpayers, to consider the proposed budget for the local schools and the town administration line item by line item and to reduce any line items which we feel are too high as long as the majority of the taxpayers at the meeting agree.

This is the legal process set out by State Statute for us to arrive at a budget acceptable to taxpayers after the Board of Finance has submitted a proposed budget for the taxpayers’ consideration.  This is the process we want to have  restored to us and the mechanism by which we can do this is by petition.

We are putting together a petition to keep the legal agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting intact and we are asking you, as a town taxpayer, to sign this petition. In the next few days we will be calling on you to sign the petition to keep the agenda for the Annual Budget Meeting the same as that of the legal Notice for that meeting.

In the meantime, please let us know if you would like to sign the petition, if you have any questions, or if you would like to help gather signatures. Call us at 860-309-7526 or email us at newhartfordplus@gmail.com.

Editorial By: Maria Moore

“What’s Your Beef With Sending The Budget To Referendum?”

An exasperated reader asked our editor. Here’s her response in an editorial:

OK, let’s get this clear: My beef isn’t the fact that the selectmen send the budget to referendum. It’s that they take away the taxpayers’ ability to go through the budget line by line BEFORE sending it to referendum. And this is something they’ve come up with themselves, it’s not the result of an ordinance as everyone seems to think.  And it’s been happening for 15 years.  Time to put an end to it.

This is my understanding of the situation – with some help from a few people in town who understand it because they’ve watched it develop over the last 15 years.

• An ordinance was passed in 1990 which sends a budget to referendum as opposed to voting on it at a town meeting.  This was done because a very active taxpayers’ association at the time wanted to have the vote on the budget moved to referendum where they thought they stood a better chance of getting the kind of budget they wanted rather than at the Annual Budget Meeting.
• The ordinance specifically says that taxpayers get to discuss the budget (state statute says “consider” the budget, same difference), making changes to the line items downwards or removing all funding from line items (again, per state statute). The ordinance then says that the budget (that’s been “fine tuned” at the Annual Budget Meeting) is sent to referendum.

That’s what’s supposed to happen under this 1990 ordinance. No problem with that.

This is where the problem lies:

• At a Board of Selectmen meeting (always seems to be a Special meeting so no public comment is allowed) the selectmen  REMOVE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BUDGET at the Annual Town Meeting. They have made the only business of the Annual Budget Meeting to send the budget to referendum. The step before sending the budget to referendum – consideration by the taxpayers – is no longer happening.

So we have an Annual Budget Meeting with no budget to consider.  No wonder no-one shows up for that meeting.

Could it be that the selectmen and the Board of Finance find it more convenient not to allow taxpayers their statutory right to have the final say on the budgets by “fine tuning” – adjusting the line items – in the two budgets (local government and local elementary schools) before they’re sent to referendum?

What do you think? Since they’re removing the consideration (discussion) of the budget by taxpayers at the Annual Budget Meeting, this is what we’re allowing to happen:

• The Board of Finance feels comfortable discounting taxpayers’ input on the specifics of the budget and on the issue of a tax increase (or not) for the budget.
• The local elementary schools’ Board of Ed feels comfortable presenting budgets with huge increases compared to the town’s and Regional # 7′s budgets.  In the budget that’s currently in process, the local Board of Ed has a 25% increase in Special Ed costs vs. Regional’s 4.2% Special Ed. increase. I know the argument of the high-cost Special Ed student that’s just moved to town, but Regional too has a high-cost Special Ed student that they’re bringing back to Regional this year. Can the Board of Finance do anything about the local schools’ budget? No, BOF members can’t go in and change the BOE line items. Only the BOE members can do that AND the taxpayers during the Annual Budget Meeting – but every year the selectmen take away the taxpayers’ ability to consider the BOE budget, thereby removing the checks and balances that the process formerly provided!
• And the town government budget? The First Selectman feels comfortable putting $140,000 into Brown’s Corner and the Field House roof and a Rec Study without even presenting estimates of what the work will cost. And the $25,000 to begin repairs of the septic system at Berkshire Hall (a short distance from the waters of the lake)?  Cut from the budget. And what does the Board of Finance do? “The town’s come in at 0%” we hear them say, and they don’t touch the town’s line items, although they can. And the only other group that could cut the town government’s line items, the taxpayers? The selectmen keep taking away their right to do that at the Annual Budget Meeting, another set of checks and balances that has been gotten rid of.

So that’s my beef:  The system that the BOS and the BOF have established over the last 15 years allows them to have full say on the specifics of the budget, leaving the taxpayers only the ability to vote for or against the whole budget at referendum.

And how has this been allowed to happen? It’s not because of an ordinance passed in 1990 and it’s not because of State Statute. Both of those allow the taxpayers to discuss and change the budget line items at the Annual Budget Meeting.

It’s because we allow it to happen. Every year the selectmen strip the taxpayers of their power to have the final say on the specifics of the budget they’ll be voting on. And we allow that to happen.

But this year, Bob and I have stood our ground and have challenged this recent development in our town governance.  We’ve been encouraged by those taxpayers among us, Republicans and Democrats, who can remember back more than 15 years when they would go to Pine Meadow Elementary School – before Town Hall was expanded – to discuss, and suggest changes, and yes, change line items in the budget that the majority didn’t like.

And that’s the budget process we want to follow, without having the selectmen block it every year.

_______________________________________

This year’s Annual Budget Meeting will be held this coming Tuesday, April 26.  The selectmen met this past Monday at an 8:00 a.m. Board of Selectmen Special Meeting at which they removed the consideration of the budget at the Annual Budget Meeting (Item # 1) from the Notice (call) of that meeting; see our April 18 report Selectmen Meet To Set Annual Budget Meeting, Remove Consideration of Budget At That Meeting, Set Referendum Date.

To read the 1990 Ordinance and the State Statute Sec. 7-344, see our April 6, 2011 report Request To Return To Consideration Of Proposed Town Budget At Annual Budget Meeting: Letter To BOF.

To read our editor’s report of last year’s Annual Budget Meeting, see our April 27, 2010 report Town Annual Budget Meeting, A Meeting Of No Substance And No-Shows, Scheduled For Tonight.

'Town Meeting' by Norman Rockwell.

By: Maria Moore

Before the town’s Board of Finance began their consideration of exactly how much of a tax increase they would approve for the budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2011-12 they would present to taxpayers to vote on at the May 3 budget referendum, Chairman Ben Witte started the budget discussion by asking his fellow Board members whether they felt there should be any changes to the budget following the feedback they had received from the Public Hearing. Alesia Kennerson, BOF member, was the only one to comment, saying: “I don’t think we need to make any changes.” See our April 13 report 0.92% Tax Increase For Upcoming Fiscal Year: BOF Proposal.

We thought we’d go back and look at the letters taxpayers emailed to the Board of Finance members on whether there should be a tax increase this year. Of the 28 pieces of correspondence (all emails) from taxpayers that received by the Board of Finance members and that are attached to the March 22 minutes of the Special Board of Finance meeting which began with an opportunity for public comments on the upcoming budget (see our March 24 video Taxpayers Give Input On Budget At Board Of Finance Special Meeting: VIDEO Of Public Comment), we found:

• 26 taxpayers were opposed to a tax increase for the upcoming fiscal year;
• 1 taxpayer supported a tax increase “to maintain the high standards that make New Hartford Public Schools the envy of many towns;”
• 1 taxpayer emailed regarding teachers’ salary increases and did not address the issue of a tax increase (not included below).

Following is what the taxpayers had to say to the Board of Finance. We have blacked out any identifying information from the correspondence; the originals are attached to the March 22 Board of Finance Special Meeting minutes and they are available as part of the public record in the Town Clerk’s office.

Taxpayers opposed to a tax increase in the budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12

.
Letter 1:

Letter 2:

Letter 3:

Letter 4:

Letter 5:

Letter 6:

Letter 7:

Letter 8:

Letter 9:

Letter 10:

Letter 11:

Letter 12:

Letter 13:

Letter 14:

Letter 15:

Letter 16:

Letter 17:

Letter 18:

Letter 19:

Letter 20:

Letter 21:

Letter 22:

Letter 23:

Letter 24:

Letter 25:

Letter 26:

Taxpayer in favor of a tax increase in the budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12

.
Letter 27:

.
Please Note: The above correspondence is that which was submitted as part of the minutes. From the comments made by the BOF members at their March 22 meeting, there was more correspondence received that was not included with the minutes; those taxpayers, according to the BOF members, were also overwhelmingly against a tax increase.

A view of Ten Street, one of the older residential streets in the Pine Meadow section of New Hartford. Photo from NewHartfordPlus archives.

We obtained a copy of Denton Butler’s letter to the Board of Finance members which he sent to them on April 11, the day before the BOF members met and settled on a 0.92% tax increase for the Budget for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year:

TO: Board Of Finance
FROM: D. E. Butler
DATE: April 11, 2011

I would like to ask every member of the BOF, every proponent of the budget (as it stands), as well as those who oppose the budget, to contemplate this statement: Not once during the current budget making process, regardless of the entity that submitted a budget, did you hear any of the following:

“We should consider this alternative approach” – “We propose to attempt the following.” – “We have a novel idea that will lead to a reduction in the cost of doing business.” “We’re willing to sustain our current costs, at the very least (or) rollback costs to lessen the burden placed on the taxpayer.”

Instead we heard:

“Our children will be denied.” “We can only retain the best by paying the most.” “There’s no way we can cut costs.” “How much longer can we attempt to have a zero based budget.” “The potential for educational cuts that will dramatically impact next year’s program.”

I think the emotional based responses came to the forefront rather than the reality of … how much longer can your family and mine afford to sustain a model that calls for tax increases ad infinitum? I think that ship has sailed.

I recently prepared a tax burden analysis. (See below.) It is an over-simplification and it under reports the demands of the current New Hartford taxpayer. Simply stated, it’s oppressive. Knowing that the State budget as well as the Federal government will put additional tax burden on taxpayers – the question is simple – When are you going to say NO and when are you going to say I want to see your plan for alternative approaches that yield the same results or better at no increase in cost? For those of you, who are working stiffs, isn’t that what the business that you work for, the business that must compete, has demanded every year? Isn’t that what you do with your own household budget?

BTW – Since preparing my tax analysis: Gas has gone from $3.33 per gallon to $3.93 and with it the gross receipts tax has gone from $.19 cents per gallon to $.23 cents per gallon (and it will be adjusted upward next month). At the same time the surcharge on electricity, which took effect Jan 1, 2011, brings taxes and fees (non-electric costs on your electricity to 38% of your bill.) Food and other purchased goods are skyrocketing in cost. Just ask the shopper in your family.

Now for the part that I consider an abrogation of the BOF duty. Please don’t insult the taxpayer’s intelligence with a bogus tax collection rate, versus the real collection rate and the excess collection over the state’s requirements for a reserve.

History will show the actual collection rate for the past 10 years (source New Hartford Tax Collector) exceeds your estimates annually. Accordingly, we have had more taxes collected each year than is required to sustain the budget, resulting in over-taxation, but less credited so that the BOF can use it to lessen the subsequent year’s tax increase. This specifically allows agencies to continue to increase their budgets and then subsequently the cost to taxpayers.

To quote Einstein: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
So, if you decide to give in to the urge for an increase this year keep this in mind – things aren’t getting better; nobody’s tax burden has been lessened and you’ve set the stage for business as usual next tax season. However, in my opinion, you will not have morally or ethically done your job, even though you may have met statutory requirements. Further, I promise to be an even bigger pain in your backside next year. Trust me, neither my neighbors nor I will be looking for a ZERO budget. Like Wal-Mart, it’s rollback time.

Bud Butler

‘Where Does All The Money Go’ Presentation

Denton Butler illustrated for the BOF members how a $62,000 income is reduced by taxes at the Federal, state and local level, to an after-tax income of $35.065.95 from which housing, transportation, food, child-related expenses, insurance, retirement savings must be deducted. A powerful – and sobering – illustration.

Download Denton’s 11-page presentation: Where Does All The Money Go? by Denton Butler (140).

Below are two compelling pages of the illustration, pages 9 and 10:

Many Thanks to Denton Butler for providing the answer to a question asked many times in the NewHartfordPlus Crew’s home.

The Board of Finance members used most of their regular meeting last night to consider the tax increase for the upcoming fiscal year. Their final motion of the evening summed up the result of their deliberations:

• Increase revenue by $22,000
• Reduce the New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed Capital expenditures to a total of $85,000
• Increase the tax collection rate to 97.5%

Total expenditures were set at $21,542,637.00,  which results in a 0.92% tax increase for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year Town Budget.

The motion passed with Dan Charest, Alesia Kennerson and Laura Sundquist voting in favor of it; Reggie Smith and Roy Litchfield voted against it.  Roy was seated for Jim Fitzgerald who was not at the meeting.

The above increase includes a 1.79% increase for the New Hartford Public Schools (elementary schools), and a 2% increase in the town’s assessment from Regional # 7 (Middle and High Schools).  It also maintains intact the Town Administration’s Capital expenditures, including $90,000 to complete Brown’s Corner and $50,000 for a new roof at the Field House at Brodie Park and to fund a Rec study for potential new playing fields. The one Capital Expenditures item requested by the Rec Commission, $25,000 for the septic system at Berkshire Hall at Brodie Park, was cut by the BOF members during their Special Meeting on March 22.

Regular Agenda Items

Before the discussion of the budget for the upcoming year got under way, the BOF members went through their regular agenda items (see agenda of this meeting at the end of this report). The regular items were dealt with speedily; following is a quick report of several of those items.

I.Seating of Alternates: Roy Litchfield was seated for Jim Fitzgerald who was not at the meeting. Jim, however, had emailed his fellow BOF members a 4-point motion regarding (at least in part) the Regional # 7 budget and he had asked that they act on the motion in his absence. Ben Witte, Chairman of the BOF, said it was unclear whether under the Freedom of Information Act such emailing outside of a formal meeting was legal. He said he wouldn’t act on Jim’s motion unless one of the BOF members present wanted to take it on as their own; no-one did so and the meeting continued.

IV.Opportunity for Public to Speak: Ben made clear to the handful of members of the public at the meeting that this was their only opportunity to make comments. Two residents spoke briefly: Denton Butler who said that he had emailed the BOF members that morning regarding his views on the budget and that he had nothing further to add. The following day our reporter obtained a copy of Denton’s email which we will post following this report. The second person to address the BOF members was our reporter, speaking as a taxpayer, who reminded the Board of Finance members that they had been entrusted by the taxpayers to take care of their finances and that she hoped that they would keep the taxpayers’ needs uppermost in their minds when they finalized their budget later that evening.

V.Reports:

The following reports were made to the Board of Finance:

a. BOE/Superintendents Report – Phillip O’Reilly

b. Bookkeeper’s Report – Annie Witte

c. Treasurer’s Report – Gordon Ross

d. First Selectman’s Report – Dan Jerram

These reports will be dealt with in a separate article so they will not be lost in the budget discussion.

VII. Other Items to Come Before the Board:

At the very end of the meeting Reggie addressed the letter that our reporter, Maria Moore and her husband, Bob Moore handed to the BOF during the recent Budget Hearing in which they asked for a return to considering the budget during the Annual Budget Meeting as provided by state statute; see our April 6 article for a copy of the letter and the relevant state statute and town ordinance.  he said that the letter should be referred to the Board of Selectmen who could best address it.  Ben agreed and said that the letter had been forwarded to the Board of Selectmen.  He added: “I think the process is fine.  If there are legal issues, they won’t come for this Board.”

Discussion Leading To The Proposed 0.92% Tax Increase

Ben started the budget discussion by asking the Board members whether they felt there should be any changes to the budget following the feedback they had received from the Public Hearing.  Alesia Kennerson, BOF member, was the only one to comment, saying: “I don’t think we need to make any changes.”

Reggie started the discussion of specific items by saying: “For the doors and windows (replacement at Antolini School) there’s an estimate of $500,000.  I want to discuss that.”

Dr. Philip O’Reilly, Superintendent of New Hartford Public Schools, said that he had met with Alesia, Roy and Denton with regard to that project.  Alesia said that she’d like to see that project bonded in the future with the roof.  Ben said he’d asked Philip to touch base with Alesia and to have a Plan B in place.  He said it wasn’t ready yet and felt more like a bonding project and he’d suggested getting Denton from the BOC (Building Oversight Committee for the wastewater treatment plant) involved “for another set of eyes.”

The BOF members went on to discuss the various capital projects that could be done at the schools, including refurbishing the library.  Steve Tuxbury, Board of Ed member and a member of their Facilities Committee, expressed his displeasure that they had all agreed to take on the project and that they’d hired the engineering company and spent $20,000 and that they will lose some of that if they do the project later.  Ben responded: “The numbers (for the project) are all over the place.”  Dan Charest  said that the Board was now more amenable to bonding (now that they were that much closer to the bond for the Bakerville renovations being paid off).

Reggie made a motion to remove the doors and windows project from the 2011-12 budget but that project had not been included since the plan had been to pay for it with funds from the reserve fund which they were looking to draw down; see the discussion at the BOF Special Meeting on March 22.  Ben said they were not ready to do the windows and doors project.

Ben then asked the BOF members: “What are we going to go to the taxpayers with a tax increase?”  He said they should decide what they want for the budget and then look at capital.

Ben then said that there had been an error in the formula that they had been using to calculate the tax rate, that the Motor Vehicle taxes had been double counted.  By correcting the formula, then the 1.8% tax increase based on a 96.5% collection rate would actually be 1.8% based on a 97.15% collection rate.

They calculated that for a 0% increase they would need $300,000, in a combination of reduced expenditures or increase in income.  If Regional were to come in at zero, they said they would still need $180,000 taken out of the rest of the budget.  They cut the Board of Ed Capital expenditures to $85,000 (bearing in mind that they would be looking at bonding the doors and windows project, the roof at Bakerville, etc.); they increased the collection rate to 97.5%.

They were still not at zero and at one point Reggie said: “If the local schools and the town government have cuts, (I’d) love to hear it.”  No cuts in capital expenditures were offered by the First Selectman, keeping intact the  $140,000 he had allocated to Brown’s Corner and to the Field House/Rec Study.

With no other cuts available, Ben said: “I don’t think it will be at zero.  If the voters don’t pass it, we’ll be back (at working the budget).”

They had discussed cutting the $40,000 for the next revaluation of property from the budget, but later decided to put it back in.

In the end, they decided on the following:

• Increase revenue by $22,000 (including the difference between the actual and the estimate revenue from Burlington from sharing the Assessor, etc.);
• Reduce the New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed Capital expenditures to a total of $85,000;
• Increase the tax collection rate to 97.5%.

This resulted in total expenditures of $21,542,637.00, which resulted in a 0.92% tax increase for the 2011-12 Fiscal Year Town Budget.

Capital Reserve Fund Approved For New Hartford Schools’ Board Of Ed Use

With $30,000 excess capital from this year’s budget, the Board of Finance members agreed to allow the local schools’ Board of Ed to establish a Capital Reserve Fund for them to use for unexpected expenses.  The town had also received a $30,000 reimbursement from the state for the boiler replacement project at Antolini and Philip asked if that money could also be added to the Capital Reserve Fund.  The Board of Finance members did not agree to adding that,  saying that it was for reimbursement of funds that had been expended.

____________________

BOARD OF FINANCE
AGENDA – April 12,2011

I.Seating of Alternates

II.Adoption/Revision of Agenda

III.Approval of Minutes

a.4/5/11 budget hearing

b.3/22/11 special meeting

c.3/8/11 regular meeting

IV.Opportunity for Public to Speak

V.Reports:

a.BOE/Superintendents Report – Phillip O’Reilly

b.Bookkeeper’s Report – Annie Witte

c.Treasurer’s Report – Gordon Ross

d.First Selectman’s Report – Dan Jerram

VI.2011-12 Budget – finalize budget recommendations

VII.Other Items to Come Before the Board

VIII.Adjournment

The Board of Finance held a Budget Hearing on Tuesday, April 5 at which all three budgets were presented by their respective bodies to residents. Bob Moore, NewHartfordPlus techie, video’ed the three-hour meeting and he will be adding three separate videos of the hearing as they are processed.  Below is the first video of the Regional # 7 presentation:

Video # 1: Northwestern Regional # 7 Budget Presentation

After Board of Finance member Reggie Smith opened the meeting and handed the chairmanship back to Ben Witte (who had rearranged his work travel schedule to be at the hearing), the first budget was presented by Molly Sexton Read, Chairperson of Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed. Following is the video of her presentation:

.

Video # 2: Town Administration Budget Presentation

The second budget presentation was made by First Selectman Dan Jerram. Following is the video of his presentation:

.

Video # 3: New Hartford Public Schools Budget Presentation

The final budget presentation was made by Superintendent Dr. Philip O’Reilly. Following is the video of his presentation.  Included are some of the comments made after the presentation.

At last night’s Board of Finance Meeting the NewHartfordPlus Crew handed a letter to the Board of Finance asking for the return to taxpayers of their statutory right to be able to consider the proposed town budget during the Annual Budget Meeting. Taxpayers will then have the ability once again to make adjustments to each item by reducing the amount allocated to that item.  The taxpayer-adjusted town budget is then brought to a vote, either during the Annual Budget Meeting or by adjourning to referendum.

Below is a copy of Maria and Bob Moore’s letter, as well as the 1990 Town Ordinance which specifies that the vote on the budget will be by referendum but which still allows taxpayers the ability to discuss (including adjusting line items as per the state statute).  We also include a copy of State Statute 7-344, Appropriations, Laying of tax, that specifies the process by which a town budget is arrived at.  New Hartford is governed by State Statute. i.e. the town does not have a charter by which it is governed, and therefore we are governed by State Statutes.

Maria And Bob Moore’s Letter

The number of the Moores' street address has been deleted according to their wish.

Town Ordinance Submitting Town Budget To Referendum After Discussion At Town Meeting

State Statute 7-344. Appropriations. Laying of tax.

.
We will provide an update to this report once additional information becomes available.

Many Thanks to the Friends of NewHartfordPlus who have shared their knowledge and expertise to help clarify a very unclear process.

By: Bob & Maria Moore

The Board of Finance held a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, March 22, with a twofold purpose: the first, to hear public comments on the budget process so far, and the second, to discuss the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2011-12. The meeting was held at Ann Antolini in the Multi-Purpose room to accommodate any number of residents who might turn out for the meeting.

Bob Moore, NewHartfordPlus techie, videotaped the Public Comment section of the meeting and is making that video available below.

Altogether, about two dozen residents attended the meeting and of those 8 or so gave their input on the budget. Most of those who spoke addressed the high cost of education in the budget and asked for those costs to be brought under control.

A much greater number of residents had chosen to communicate in writing with the BOF members, and of those the overwhelming majority were in support of a zero-increase budget. They, most likely, had written in response to an email that circulated among taxpayers alerting them of the 5.69% increase in property taxes that would result from the proposed budgets that had been presented at the Saturday morning Budget Workshop.see the copy of the email posted on NewHartfordPlus.

“I received 30 emails, and only one was in favor of the budgets that were proposed (at the Board of Finance’s Saturday morning Budget Workshop).” Ben Witte, BOF Chairman said. He then read aloud portions of several of the emails he had received to give a sense of residents’ input: to hold the line on spending, especially on education. “Looking at the names on these emails – they’re not the kinds of people you usually hear from.” He commented. Other BOF members agreed, saying that they too had received similar emails.

With the Public Comment portion of the meeting closed, the BOF members then turned their attention to a discussion of the Town budget for the upcoming fiscal year; see our companion report After Taxpayers Give Their Input, Board Of Finance Considers Budget, Eyes 1.8% Tax Increase.

Following is the video of the Public Comment section of the March 22 Board of Finance meeting:

UPDATED: To correct who voted for Reggie’s motion of position and to add the second motion regarding Regional’s budget; Mar. 29, 2011.

By: Maria Moore

The Board of Finance held a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, March 22, with a twofold purpose: first, to hear public comments on the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and second, to discuss the Town Budget and its tax ramifications for taxpayers. The meeting was held at Ann Antolini in the Multi-Purpose room to accommodate any number of residents who might turn out for the meeting.

The Special Meeting started at 7 p.m. and the Board of Finance (BOF) members devoted the first hour to listening to taxpayers’ input on the budget. Most of the 8 or so taxpayers who spoke made the case for containing the ever-increasing cost of education and for a no-tax increase budget. Many more taxpayers had chosen to submit their comments in writing to the various members of the Board of Finance; their written comments also strongly supported a zero percent tax increase in the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year. BOF Chairman Ben Witte read a few lines from the 30 emails he had received all of which, except one, overwhelmingly supported a budget which would result in no increase in the tax rate.  He added the communications to the record of the Special Meeting.

A video of the Public Comments section of the Special Meeting has been posted in a separate report by Bob Moore, NewHarfordPlus techie.

The Public Comment section of the meeting ended, the Board of Finance members turned their attention to considering the proposed budget. That discussion lasted until 10 p.m. and by its end the BOF members settled provisionally on a 1.8% tax increase for the upcoming fiscal year – assuming, that is, that Regional #7 comes back with a revised budget with a zero percent increase which would reduce Regional’s assessment to the town by $70,000.  Following is our report of the two-hour discussion.

2011-12 Proposed Budget, Issued 3/22/11

A copy of the 2011-12 Proposed Budget, dated 3/22/11 – the date of the Special Meeting – was made available to the press. Download a copy of that proposed budget: 2011-12 Proposed Budget, 3/22/11 (139)

Discussion of the Revenue side of the Proposed Budget

The Board of Finance members discussed the revenue side of the budget at different points in the meeting.  They went over the Projected Revenue sheet (the second to the last page in the Proposed Budget dated 3-22-11), stopping at several of the items to fine-tune the amounts listed for those items.  For ease of use, download the Projected Revenue sheet individually: Projected Revenues - FY 2011-12, dated 3/22/11 (109)

The first item discussed was the FEMA Reimbursement (for a winter storm that FEMA is reimbursing the additional costs), a $45,000 item that had not been included in the previous draft dated 3-7 which was discussed at the Saturday morning Budget Workshop on March 12.  The BOE members asked the First Selectman, Dan Jerram, if that was a reasonable amount to expect to be reimbursed.  Dan said that the town had put in for $83,000 and that had been approved.  The BOF members changed the $45,000 figure to $60,000.  They then touched on the Manufacturers’ taxes reimbursement which is being eliminated by the state.  They decided to show that as a $135,938 loss of revenue, although they did add $12,000 for the Retail Tax reimbursement.  They also had added to the Projected Budget the state reimbursement of $112,903 for the windows and doors replacements at Antolini School, one of the projects on the proposed Capital Expenditures  part of the budget. The last credit amount to the Projected Revenues is $144,979, the Surplus projected from the current fiscal year; this Surplus amount is always added to the following year’s revenues.

The Projected Revenues sheet still showed the town projected revenues before taxes to be $4,854,683, which is a $73,225.39 shortfall compared to this year’s (2010-11) total revenues before taxes of $4,927,908.  The $73,225.39 shortfall is a lot less than the $194,649.39 shortfall on the Projected Revenues sheet that had been presented at the March 12 Budget Workshop.

Tax Collection Rate And Drawdown Of Town Reserve Fund

Two other factors also impacted the revenue side of the equation.   When the BOF members were later balancing revenues with expenses to calculate the amount of taxes needed to fund the Town budget, they agreed to adjust the tax collection rate from 96% to 96.5% in recognition of the fact that the actual collection rate has been over 98% for the past dozen years or so.  BOF members also agreed to draw down the town’s reserve fund from the 15% level at which it now stands; the town’s advisor has told the town that the reserve number could be brought down to 11% without affecting the town’s bond rating.

While discussing the New Hartford Schools’ Capital Expenditures Requests (much later in this report), Ben Witte, BOF Chairman, said that taking $160,000 from the town’s reserves would reduce the percentage of the Reserve Fund from 15% to 13% [ or 14% - to be verified with Ben ].  Rather than adding this reserve drawdown to the town’s revenues for the upcoming fiscal year, which would then create a  deficit in the following year’s (2012-13) budget, the BOF members discussed using this approximately $160,000 (if they were to draw down the Reserve Fund by 1%) to fund capital projects for the local schools’ buildings.

Expenditures Side of the Proposed Budget

The New Hartford Board of Ed had submitted a revised budget dated Tuesday, March 15, showing the cuts that the Board of Ed had approved in their meeting of March 15.  That budget showed a 1.71% increase due to the unforseen high Special Ed costs.  Download a copy of the latest New Hartford Schools Board of Ed Budget: New Hartford Schools Board of Ed Budget, March 15 (102).

The only unknown element in the budget was the Regional # 7 revised budget which the Regional Board of Ed was to approve on Wednesday evening, the day after the Special Meeting (that meeting was subsequently cancelled due to the snow forecast, and the Regional Board of Ed met on Thursday evening, March 24 after their budget presentation in Norfolk).  The Board of Finance members had asked for a zero percent increase from Regional but they didn’t have any additional information on Regional’s revised budget at the time of their Special Meeting.

Without a revised budget number from Regional available to them at their Tuesday evening Special Meeting, the BOF members based their discussions on the assumption that Regional # 7 would revise their budget down to a zero percent increase, making the assessment to New Hartford $7,830,914.  This reflected a $70,000 reduction in the assessment of $7,901,580 to the town in Regional’s proposed budget presented at the BOF’s Saturday morning Budget Workshop on March 12.

Town Administration Proposed Budget And Capital Expenditures

The Town Administration proposed budget reflected a zero percent increase and the BOF members did not discuss that budget, focusing briefly only on the proposed Capital Expenditures sheet of the town budget.  For ease of reference, download that Capital Expenditures sheet:  Town Administration Proposed Capital Expenditures with 3/22/11 budget (110).

The only change made by the BOF members to the Town Administration’s Capital Expenditures proposed items was to eliminate the $25,000 for the septic system at Brodie Park (item “Park & Rec Capital renamed”).  Reggie Smith proposed the motion, Alesia Kennerson seconded it, and the BOF members approved it unanimously.

New Hartford Public Schools’ Capital Expenditures

The discussion then moved onto the New Hartford Schools’ Capital Expenditures Requests sheet; download that individual sheet for ease of reference:  NH Schools Capital Expenditures Requests, March 15, 2011 (116).

The BOF members discussed the local schools’ capital expenditures items at length.  Most members of the schools’ Board of Ed as well as Superintendent Dr. Philip O’Reilly were still present at the meeting and BOF member Dan Charest asked them: “What do you guys really need?”  To which Sue Lundin, the BOE Chairperson, answered: “The projects are prioritized.”  According to the numbers next to the items on their capital expenditures sheet, the New Hartford Schools prioritized their needs as follows:

1. Roof at Bakerville School: $28,900 (with possible 45% reimbursement)
2. Replacement of the Piping Sump & Supply/Return Fuel Lines at Antolini School: $16,736
3. Windows and Doors at Antolini School: $250,000 (possible reimbursement of 45%)
4. Air Handlers at Antolini School: $80,000

Reggie Smith proposed taking a straw vote on each of the items to see where the BOF members stood on the items – it is unclear from our reporter’s notes whether Reggie was proposing a straw vote on only the items on the schools’ Capital Expenditures sheet or on each of the budget items that had been discussed to that point in the meeting).  Dan Charest intervened, asking Reggie: “What would you do with the (town surplus) money?”  Reggie answered: “I’m trying to get the capital down as much as possible for the taxpayers.”  Dan Charest asked: “Would you use the (reserve) money as revenue?”  Ben Witte said that they could do the same next year: do half a percent (drawdown of the town reserves) over two years, i.e. $70,000 each year.  Ben said that for now he would be in favor of increasing the collection rate (from 96% to 96.5%).  The discussion of alternate uses of the money to be withdrawn from the town’s reserves ended there.  Later in the meeting, the New Harford Schools’ Superintendent was told that $125,000 of additional funding (including money from the Reserve Fund, one presumes) would be made available to fund all the items on the schools’ Capital Expenditures Request sheet.

The discussion about the schools’ projects included whether the replacement of the doors and windows at Antolini schools could be done over two years, whether the air handlers could be replaced over several years.

Reggie Smith asked when the payments on the Bakerville School bonds would end (from renovations done at that school in prior years) and Dan Jerram said the payments would end in September of 2013.  Reggie asked about the payments on the Pine Meadow (New Hartford) Elementary School and he was told that they had a while left to go since those were 20-year bonds.  Reggie then said that he favored putting off doing the windows and doors and the air handlers and do them in a couple of years when the Bakerville bonds had been paid off; with the favorable bond rates, they could pay off some of the old bonds and roll them into a new one.   Dan Jerram said that the selectmen had talked about that last year but had voted to hold off doing that, to do the work  over several years.  Selectman Tom Klebart said that if the last payment for Bakerville is in 2013, and they would need to do planning for the projects, it might be worth looking at (doing what Reggie had suggested).  Jim Fitzgerald said that he’d like to see zero increase in all the budgets and that they needed to bring the Reserve Fund down because they were overtaxing the taxpayers.  Alesia Kennerson said they had $50,000 left over from the boilers (which had cost a lot less than budgeted), and they’d have $30,000 let after paying for the engineering of the windows and doors project.  Ben added that from the town side, there’s $60,000 available from this year’s budget.

Dan Charest asked: “If we’re looking at regionalization, should we be doing capital projects (at the schools)?  Alesia asked: “If we regionalize, which schools would we get rid of?”  It wouldn’t be Antolini, it was generally agreed.  At one point Ben said that $250,000 in Capital Expenditures for the schools would get the capital level (the same amount as last year).

At intermittent points in the discussion, Ben and Alesia crunched numbers to see how the things being discussed would affect the bottom line of the budget.  Various scenarios were discussed and with the time creeping closer to 10 p.m. (or flying – depending on the point of view of those at the meeting) there still seemed to be no clear picture emerging.  Reggie maintained steadfastly that they needed to keep to a budget resulting in a zero percent increase in taxes and at one point Jim said that they couldn’t do it without Regional’s numbers.

Reggie proposed taking a vote to see where the individual Board members stood.  He asked for a number for the budget including capital expenditures.   Ben said: “The numbers we’re at right now are 2.33% tax increase at a 96% collection rate, and 1.8%tax increase at a 96.5% collection rate.”  That was with Regional coming in at zero percent increase resulting in $70,000 less in the town’s assessment, it was clarified.

Reggie asked about raising the collection rate some more since it had been at over 98% for the past 8-12 years.  He asked Ben: “What if you put it in at 97% now?”  Ben did some calculation and said: “At 97% (collection rate) it’s 1.27% (tax increase).”  Ben, however, went back to a 96.5% collection rate.

Reggie proposed a “motion of position” as he termed it: “Motion to approve a budget including everything but Regional # 7 at $13,889,751 with $412,836 of capital expenditures ($250,000 for the town and $262,000 for the local Board of Ed).”

Philip O’Reilly pointed out that the Capital Expenditures for the schools was $375,000.  Ben again said that the schools’ capital was reduced to $262,000.  Alesia said they would draw from the reserves to fund it (the Capital Expenditures on the local schools’ sheet).  Ben told Philip they had another source of funding (other than the Budget).

A vote was taken on Reggie’s motion: “Motion to approve a budget including everything but Regional # 7 at $13,889,751 with $412,836 of capital expenditures ($250,000 for the town and $262,000 for the local Board of Ed).”  These budget numbers in the motion would result in a 1.8% tax increase to the town’s taxpayers at the 96.5% collection rate.  The motion passed 3 to 2. Reggie voted against it as did Laura Sundquist.

There was also another motion that was passed instructing Regional # 7 to come back with a zero percent increase in the assessment to the towns in total.

The meeting ended, with Ben saying that he would put together a presentation based on the discussions they had had in that evening’s meeting.  The presentation will be given at the next step of the budget process: the Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 5.

If you have questions regarding the budget process, please contact any of the Board of Finance members whose email addresses were posted in a previous report.

Please Note: Our reporter’s article above is a based on her notes from the meeting; she is not an accountant and makes no claims of having any special knowledge of bookkeeping.  If you have corrections, additions or clarifications to the report above, we welcome your input – especially if it is given in a spirit of goodwill.  Thanks for your understanding of our volunteer efforts.

Board of Finance members (from left to right) are Reggie Smith, Alesia Kennerson, Jim Fitzgerald, Ben Witte, Penny Miller (recording secretary), Dan Charest, Laura Sundquist and Dr. Bill Rieger

By: Maria Moore

After the Saturday morning Budget Workshop held by the Board of Finance, at which they received a clear message that they needed to come back with reduced budgets, both the New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed and the Northwestern Regional #7 Board of Ed held meetings to review their proposed budgets in light of the Board of Finance’s input.  Below are summaries of their discussions.  Neither one of the two Boards of Ed has submitted a revised copy of their proposed budget to the Town Clerk’s Office.  Hopefully, those revised copies will be available at the Board of Finance’s Special Meeting later this evening, Tuesday, March 22.

New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed Meeting – March 15:

The Board of Ed members were given a revised proposed budget titled “0% + Special Education” which is the budget they’d been asked by the Board of Finance to come up with.  This they decided, came down to 0% plus $129,000 for Special Ed, resulting in a total increase of 1.71%.  They then had to decide on making cuts of $223,852 to get down to the zero budget.

They eventually decided on the following cuts: two Library Media Assistants; one Grade 5 Teacher; one Curriculum Coordinator; musical instruments; an annuity (for the incoming Principal?); maintenance projects; technology equipment; supplies and textbooks; library.

Two non-tenured teachers would not have their contracts renewed and one of the district’s two curriculum coordinators would return to the classroom.

Having reduced the budget to zero percent increase, Steve Tuxbury moved to accept the budget as amended. The motion didn’t pass; instead Katie Fisk Natale proposed the motion: “To accept the list of recommended cuts identified in the meeting in order to meet the Board of Finance request for a zero budget.” That motion passed.

The Board of Ed members then considered their Capital projects. Steve made the motion to prioritize them as follows: 1. The roof at Bakerville; 2: the replacement of the Piping and the return fuel lines; 3: the windows and doors project at Antolini; and 4: the air handlers at Antolioni. The motion was passed.

It was left to Dr. Philip O’Reilly, Superintendent of Schools, to make the above changes to the New Hartford Schools proposed budget.

Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed Special Meeting, March 16:

The Regional # 7 Board of Ed members discussed the fact that they had received a demand to come back with a zero percent budget, and that the New Hartford Schools had been asked for a zero percent plus Special Ed costs. They decided that since the increases in Special Ed were fixed, they too would reduce their budget to 0% + increases in Special Ed costs. That would result in a 1.55 to 2% overall budget increase. That percentage was later reduced to 1.25% increase in the overall budget.

With that guidance set, Judy Palmer, Superintedent of Schools, said she could go back to her board, and start to make the cuts that were most removed from the students.

The Board of Ed members agreed to leave it to Judy to come up with a revised budget that met their criteria. Judy was to email a copy of the revised budget to the Board of Ed members and they were to hold a special meeting to agree on the revisions before taking that revised budget proposal to any of their towns.

The Board of Ed members agreed to set a Special Meeting for this evening, Tuesday, March 22 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the revised budget proposal.