Budget Details available at http://bolton.govoffice.com.
Ray Laramie - June 23, 2008
Although I no longer live in Bolton, I was a resident and homeowner here for more than twenty years and was involved in the community in a number of areas, not least of all involved in the schools. I read the forum posts this week to see what the commentary on this year's budget was, and to see if the issues have changed any. Some have, some have not. EVERYONE is feeling the financial crunch, particulary with energy costs of all forms ... gasoline, heating, and electricity ... everyone including the town departments and the schools.
But one issue that doesn't seem to change and has surfaced again this year is the misuse of statistics to bolster an argument. This year it is the statistic regarding class sizes.
Calculating the ratio of students to non-administrators does not equate to class sizes. (Not everyone treatied this number as class size either.) There are personnel in the school who perform teaching functions who are not classroom teachers for purposes of computing class sizes (although they may teach in a classroom)... library/media specialists, art and music teachers, reading specialists, speech and language specialists, and physical education teachers. Simply dividing the student population by the number of non-administrative staff (not including custodians, admisitrative office staff, health office staff, or school counsellors) gives a false picture as to class sizes. It also gives a false picture as to to the ratio of students to non-admistrative personnel for this reason: because Bolton is a samll school district, and there are staff positions mandates by law, the ratio quoted by some responders to this forum is lower than that some larger districts. That's just reality, and the "fix" is not to reduce the teaching staff to compensate.
All of this reminds me of the apocryphal story of a farmer who raised horses and rabbits. He was trying to decide what size truck to buy to transport the animals he raised, so he calculated the average weight of a horse and a rabbit and used that number to size the truck he needed. A mathematically correct, but useless number.
Also, on another comment made regarding mainstreaming of special needs students: Yes, sometimes there is one person whose entire job is to shepherd one student through the school day. This is not mandated by "No Child Left Behind", however. Rather, it is the result of the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" first passed by Congress in 1975 and most recently updated in 1997 and 2004. There are some connections between NCLB and IDEA but they are peripheral and not the reason behind the situation commented upon. IDEA does impose some serious costs upon school districts, and this is exacerbated by the district structure here in Connecticut, and the unwillingness of the state legislature to address the inequitable fiscal situation created by that structure. Also, the legislature cannot seem to put whatever available state funding there is on a timetable to allow districts to adequately plan and voters to vote on budgets with firm numbers.
Thanks to all of you who took the time to participate in the debate, and to Eileen Stanley for moderating and keeping the website on track. Bolton is a great town in which to live.
Dave R. - June 15, 2008
I'm glad it finally passed. My kids are not. My fifth grader was looking forward to a trip to the Boston Museum of Science. Since the budget cuts trips out, she is not happy. She wanted to see the 360 degree IMAX that her older sister saw and still talks about. My 7th grader is more ambivalent about the loss of trips, except for the Music to Six Flags after the competition.
Bolton Residents can now look forward to at least one Chocolate, Book, or Magazine fund-raiser each month. I hope you get your moneys worth!
Anonymous: I'm not sure if there will be furthur cuts due to building/grounds maintenance. Those items usually get passed, as they are discussed during the process so everyone involved can see the Operating costs as well as the Capital expense.
Anonymous - June 13, 2008
I do not believe that this forum is a waste of time and I have read it with interest every year that we've lived in Bolton. I do hope that the forum will stay open through the vote on the new High School. I understand that the plans include a pool, an auditorium, two gymnasiums and an addition to the Town Hall. I wonder whether all of this is sustainable, particularly the pool when the town couldn't even keep our wonderful lake open. Does anyone know what the cost will be for all of this and whether building and maintaining these new things will ultimately mean larger class sizes and more cuts for the children?
David Rosicke - June 8, 2008
10 students per teacher? Did you actually see what each one does? There are teachers that follow ONE student around all day. You can thank 'No Child Left Behind' for taking Special Needs kids and mainstreaming them. These are the ones that skew your numbers. Oh, and since the state MANDATES kids labeled as Special Needs get all the funding they require (Even if it cuts into the mainstream student activity monies), we cannot reduce those staff from our rolls without losing State Funding. If our Standardized Test scores drop due to these children not having the attention they require, then we would no longer have the reputation of a great school district. Oh, and we could then lose Federal funds. The result would be Bolon would be in a school district that would be WAY under-funded as the voters voting down the budget would choke at the tax hike required to pay for the school district in it's entirety. Probably be a mass-migration out of town, house values would surely drop, etc.
Find out the reasons for the student-teacher ratio before arbitrarily dismissing it out of hand. People who just push numbers around remind me of Ford Motor Company. I have a 1991 Taurus SHO. In 1989, when the Engineers putting the car together complained the front brakes were not adequate and asked for a $10.- per car modification, the bean-counters said no. What happened? A multi-million dollar recall (it was a tax write-off, so the accountants didn't care) that inconvenienced alot of people and turned people away from the car. In 1990, even with a bunch of improvments, it sold half as many as it did the previous year. In the end, it didn't sell as well as it could have (reputation counts), and was kept on the books only due to Contractual obligations with Yamaha. In the end, Ford lost a bunch of money on the car, and gave up marketing it by '96. By '99, it was gone. (Source: http://www.shotimes.com)
Jenny Norris - June 7, 2008
In response to Mr. Allinson's post... I don't believe this forum is a waste of time, but only if the facts are not stated accurately. Our K-8 school does not average 10 students per class, I wish. Per the BCS directory 2007-2008 distributed in 9/07 classroom sizes were as follows:
Grade Average
K 11.6 (Note: This is a 1/2 day program)
1 13.75
2 19.3
3 19.3
4 18.5
5 16.75
6 19.8
7 20.75
8 15.75
Reduce the staff by 15%-20%! Fabulous idea, our classroom sizes (K-8) would then balloon to 15-27 pupils per teacher, exceeding the state maximums. We may as well call it Bolton Daycare because ratios like that will not bode well for any sort of learning to happen. The reality is, there isn't much fat in the education budget, at all. Besides the requirements (salaries, insurance, fuel) the next thing to cut will be staff, resulting in higher classroom sizes, the loss of programs, and ultimately a Town that will not be able to attract quality educators. We moved to this town because of the education system, we had heard about former Superintendent Joe Erardi, and we toured the schools and met the administrators before making our decision. Overcrowded schools in the town we moved from was a big problem -- for the education of the kids, and the town community itself. My taxes over doubled when we moved into Bolton, but I will gladly support a budget increase in favor of education. I guess if I didn't, I could always move to China where the quality of life reflects their educational values... Parents, please get out and be heard - Vote Yes!
Bob Allinson - June 6, 2008
May I respond to Ms Kate Hammond Galle.
The number of students divided by the number of teaching staff is approx. 10 to 1 for the Bolton School District. (Not counting Administrators)
My whole point is that the continual treatment of increases by adding a percentage rather than cutting costs is an unsustainable practice. I have been in Bolton for some 13 years and my real estate taxes have doubled in that time. By the time Ms. Galle's kindergarten child reaches graduation, her taxes will have doubled from whatever she is paying now. (Rule of 72 )
Others as well as myself have made this point many times before. We are not anti-education, I believe we are realists and want to tackle a root cause. It is fact that the biggest cost in the BoE budget is salaries plus benefits.
The answer is still a NO vote.
Ed DelSignore - June 5, 2008
The BoF met Wednesday evening to adopt a revised expenditure budget for referendum #4 to be held June 10, 2008.
After much discussion, the BoF voted to present to referendum #4 a revised expenditure budget in the amount of $17,789,351, a 4.58% increase from last fiscal year's budget of $17,009,707. This represents a $50,000 reduction from the failed referendum #3 budget of $17,839,351. This reduction was applied as follows: Contingency fund reduced by $10,000 to $20,000 and the BoS and BoEd expenditure budgets reduced $15,000 and $25,000 respectively.
The BoF accepted an increase on the revenue side of $24,000 resulting from $9,000 in reimbursement for expenses reported by the BoEd and $15,000 in additional unexpended appropriations reported by the BoS. (Note: We have been able to describe the additional revenues without using a term sensitive to some. If the proposed charter is accepted we will be able to avoid the issue up to the time of setting the mill rate--can't come soon enough for this writer).
The combination of a 2.3% increase in the grand list, the reduced expenditures and increased revenues noted above results in a proposed budget with a projected tax rate increase of 1.6% from last year's mill rate of 30.97 to a mill rate of about 31.46.
Whatever your thoughts on the budget; do vote next Tuesday, June 10.
Kate Hammond Galle - June 4, 2008
It appears that the referendum was voted down again. Although I disagree with the No voters, I must say that I am pleased that there was a somewhat higher turnout of voters this time around. I thought that the proposed budget was quite fair and the fact that it was voted down again is perplexing to me. Let's face facts--most of the increase can be attributed to non-discretionary costs that go up for all of us--fuel, insurance, etc... The Board of Ed budget was reasonable. I am of the opinion that the Board of Ed budget as proposed was "bare bones" to begin with and with each new budget referendum we are being forced to cut vital services to our children. As a fairly new resident in town, I can honestly say that one of the main reasons that we purchased our home here in Bolton was because of the good schools. Because the schools are so good, we were willing to pay more for our house here in Bolton. We certainly could have purchased a "nicer house" with more property in one of the adjoining towns (i.e. Manchester or Vernon) for significantly less than we paid. However, we wanted to be in a town that invested in the future of its children, which in turn means investing in the future of the town itself. We all benefit from the good schools in Bolton--even those of you who do not have children in the schools. These good schools raise our property values and make our town more desirable for those looking to move here. If we continue to cut funding for our schools, not only will the children suffer but all homeowners will suffer.
Furthermore, I vehemently disagree with Mr. Allinson's suggestion that the schools cut 15-20% of their teaching staff. First, Mr. Allinson is absolutely incorrect when he suggests that the average class size in Bolton consists of only 10 children--suggesting that 15 children in a class would be sufficient. Mr. Allinson, as a parent of a child in the kindergarten that is involved in the school, I am unaware of any classes in the Bolton Center School that have ten children in them. Please, ask to see a census of the school--this is just not true. Fifteen is the average- if not higher. Even with the classroom sizes that we have now (which I personally think are excellent), many of our children in the lower grades continue to struggle in reading and writing--just look at our test scores. To lay off 15-20% of our teaching staff will not remedy the problems that we face. Indeed, it will only exacerbate our problems. Larger classroom sizes mean that the children are getting less personalized attention in the classroom. This in turn equates to lower scores. Lower scores mean that the schools are no longer as competitive. Less competitive schools with lower rankings equate to less demand for the property here in Bolton and now YOUR PROPERTY VALUE IS LESS because you weren't willing to invest in the schools. It is a vicious cycle.
I know that we are all overwhelmed with the higher price of everything these days. However, let's face it folks, we need flexibility in our budget--to try to cap it below a certain percentage rate every single year is short-sighted. Things happen, prices rise above the arbitrary number that we set as the "maximum amount" that the budget should increase every year. I do not disagree with tightening the purse strings when we need to. I understand that the town (like all of us in our own homes with our own budgets) has "wants" and "needs." I believe that a review of the budget clearly shows that there are needs in our schools that are not being met--and to cut this budget again will be detrimental to all of us.
Bob Allinson - June 2, 2008
I have not contributed any comment this year. I find it a waste of time. Reductions offered in the referendums come out of the "padding" put in the original budget, and they are miniscule.
Real reductions would start to come if $1 million was an offered reduction by tackling the major source of expenditures. Reduce the educational staff by 15-20%. Class sizes of 15 instead of 10 should be doable and acceptable. It would still be much better than the China number of 72 per class reported by the Superintendent on his visit there.
On the positive side I have no problem with increased town expenditures and new buildings, town hall, school, library etc.
Dick Tuthill - May 31, 2008
Hehehe, I guess that we have confirmed what we all had suspected -- that I am at least a day or two behind the curve (read the dated posts below:-):-)
I applaud the BoF for their vision and willingness to get the budget cycle over in fewer rounds than in the recent past. A 4.48% increase in spending is reasonable in current circumstances and I support this proposal.
Ed DelSignore - May 30, 2008
The BoF met on Wednesday to adopt a revised expenditure budget for referendum #3 to be held June 3, 2008. The meeting spent the first hour and a quarter discussing items and issues concerning additional revenues. In the end, projected revenues were increased by $85,000. $60,000 received by the BoEd from the State as reimbursement of expenses and $25,000 as projected revenue from next years expenses.
The BoF voted to present to referendum #3 a revised expenditure budget in the amount of $17,837,351, a 4.48% increase from last fiscal years budget of $17,009,707. This represents a $120,000 reduction from the failed referendum #2 budget of $17,957,351. This reduction was applied equally ( $60,000 each) to the BoEd and BoS budgets.
In combination with the increase on the revenue side of $85,000 noted above the revised budget results in a tax rate increase of 2.2% from last year to a mill rate of about 31.7.
Whatever your thoughts on the budget; do vote next Tuesday.
Note: If the recent voting trend continues Bolton will approve the budget with a recent record low total of approximately 1200 votes cast.
Dick Tuthill - May 30, 2008
We need to get the spending increase down below 4.5%. As the subprime mortgage crisis has demonstrated, smart people live in sustainable fashion within their means.
An increase in spending of 5.58%, no matter what the tax rate increase is, locks in unsustainable growth that in the future will be felt very painfully the first year the Legislature comes under deficit pressure and reduces aid to towns and cities. I would not be surprised if that year comes in FY 09/10.
Interesting that there has been so little dialog on this forum, especially in view of the enlightened promise by Bruno Simonetti last year to have open communication in the electronic media. Oh well....
David Rosicke - May 30, 2008
Former candidate Romney gained a reputation of not raising taxes, but instead raised fees. Let's see. To pay for the school budget, let's charge McDonalds sized prices for those not on assistance. Let's double or triple the filing fees for Building Permits to pay for that department as only people who need those services should pay their salaries. Permit fees for Yard and Garage Sales...
I see more people voted (34%) and more voted in favor of the budget. I think the total increase, based on real costs going up dramatically, is under what I would have expected. I still feel it is due to deferring expenses out two years from now, and I think that is going to hurt us more then as those budget items may not match actual costs two years from now. What's not in the budget this year will come back and hurt us later on. We can get creative through fees to fund specific departments or other means to help reduce the impact of these upcoming expenses, but we also don't want to scare off new prospective residents and businesses. As my boss jokingly sometimes says "Let's have a Bake Sale so we can get ." That method only goes so far. So do the Fees. In Hawaii many years ago (don't know if this is still true), any modification to a car other than maintenance items required a permit. Custom rims - Permit and sticker. Non-stock exhaust or muffler - Permit and sticker. Windows tinted - Permit and sticker. Nobody would want to live in this town, as nice as it is, if we went down these paths.
Ed DelSignore - May 17, 2008
The BoF met on Thursday to propose a revised expenditure budget. Following a long discussion about whether the items for the Town proper and BoEd approved at the annual town and budget meeting were included in or excluded from the failed budget the BoF stated the items were part of the budget cuts made in arriving at that budget. The issue certainly needed clarification.
The BoF voted to present to referendum a revised expenditure budget in the amount of $17,959,351, a 5.58% increase from last fiscal year's budget of $17,009,707. This represents a $125,000 reduction from the failed budget of $18,084,351. The reduction was applied to the BoEd portion of the budget because the BoF realized the earlier reductions were unfairly weighted against the town proper budget.
In combination with an increase on the revenue side of $85,000 from unexpended town proper funds the revised budget results in a tax rate increase of 3.9% to a mill rate of about 32.2.
Had the same thoughts as Dick Tuthill. It was suggested to me that maybe the townspeople are just exhausted with all the talk and will let their votes do the communicating (IF anyone is listening).
Dave R. - May 16, 2008
I spoke with my wife last night (there has to be a voice of reason in the house!). She mentioned there are some families struggling disproportionally with rising the energy costs. I'm sure most people that travel Rt. 85 see that white house with plastic up each year. What can be done when another homeowner has a 1940's vintage ranch with NO insulation and uses 1400+ gallons of oil a year? Well, the neighborly thing to do would be to help out, either physically, with proven ideas, or finding programs from CL&P and the state that help.
We had similar window problems with our Manchester house. I put weatherstrip on the top, bottom, and between the panes where they clip together. I even replaced the windows three years later with the best we could afford. We didn't save any energy, as the problem wasn't the windows, but the large gap between the window (and door) framing and the framing of the house. About $100 and two hours labor per window/door resulted in a substantial energy savings and comfort level in the house. We were using just over 800 gallons of oil a year in a 2x4 construction, aluminum sided house when we moved.
Onto the school budget. Catch-22 there. If staffing were reduced, we would need volunteers to maintain the current levels of support. Or, we would need to increase the number of students per classroom. Lastly, we could stop accepting students from out-of-town, which makes the least sense when you realize these student's parents are paying the ENTIRE $10,000+ cost of putting their kids in our school, vs, I believe, an average of $3000/year based on homeowner taxes.
Overall, we have few services above the basics and the school in this town. How is it possible to cut these furthur when their costs, like the rest of ours, is going up? How can we allow buildings to deteriorate, remain energy inefficient, yet expect our town employees to work in them? If we can keep saying this is fine by voting against the budget each year, then we are saying we have every right to let our town's reputation deteriorate too?
Hebron has a simlar problem with the school being the biggest portion of the budget, even though they are a larger town. What have they done?
Dave R. - May 15, 2008
"And for the Town budget to go up by 6.9% in a year of lower debt service expense is another disconnect." Well, isn't the point to get OUT OF DEBT? Gee Whiz! If we get out of debt sooner, then our kids and future residents will not have this local debt over their heads like the Federal Government has right now. If we have a chance to do this at a local level, for a modest amount (based on the total budget), I'm for it. Oh, and if you look, you will see this new debt was incurred by purchasing property next to the Town Hall and a new Fire Ladder Truck - Items the townpeople approved. If you don't want to pay for them, DON'T buy them. Kind of like the Credit Card Debt in this country. The rest of the town felt these were necessary. If you don't want them, and vote down the budget that pays for the Public Safety item (Ladder Truck), I'm sure others in the town could be upset enough to ask that the Ladder Truck not be used at your house if there was a fire, even if it was not legal to do so. The last item in the list ($250,000 temporary loan) is spelled out for the next two years. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but it appears to be a 'Cash Advance', probably to cover shortfalls in last year's budget - which you probably voted down too.
What did I notice? Nothing for Energy Improvements except for some windows in Herrick Park. Why were the NRMC windows, roof, and the new Boilers pushed out until next year, making the Capital Improvement monies almost five times more expensive in 2010, when the Energy Savings based on current price increases would help out sooner? Maybe there is an incentive to switch to Geothermal Heat Pumps for that boiler $$ cost. Then the costs would be based on electric rates, which fortunately are regulated in this state, and could be off-set more with Solar Panels in the future. Get off of Oil, and the energy consumption costs change dramatically - in 2009, not 2010. I just see a major problem with an additional 2 million dollar Capital outlay in 2010, especially if the anticipated $307,347 dollars in Grants doesn't materialize in that fiscal year as well.
I would like to comment that since we moved to this town in 2006, there have been three (possibly four) Building Inspectors. If we can't give our Town employees regular increases in pay (NOT cost of living), there is no way we will keep them. The average US company is giving a 2% increase this year, if they are not laying off employees. The total salary budget looks like it went up 5.5%, but it also seems like some unfilled positions were taken care of. which increases the salary budget 'unfavorably'. I'd rather NOT have overworked people making mistakes on my town paperwork, or Grant paperwork filed late, etc. As the town increases in residents AND people from out of town send their children to our town due to the school's reputation, there will be a need for more employees. We also need a way of retaining the employees we have that know our town and care for it Replacing any of them could be done with two cheaper people - at a greater insurance cost, more office space, and a six month's minimum training to understand the basics. Lose/lose situation, if you ask me. I went through this at one employer. He said anyone off the street could do the job. Well, that 'Anyone' he hired has the memory retention span of a child. Every time we came back on shift (Rotating Nights with 2 days off in between), his shift supervisor had to retrain him. After six months of this, the employer realized it was a mistake and moved him to a different department where he was not required to do any technical work. If we don't keep those we have (with their knowledge) and provide incentives, just like any GOOD employer would do for talented, contientious employees, the good ones go away, and you can't hire new good ones for that same cost.
Anyway, I don't see anything that stands out as dramatically wrong with this budget - except for next year's $2,456,500 pile-driver of a Capital increase. I think it should be spaced out better. It seems that this constant budget mayhem is contributing to things being pushed off until they become unwieldy or break - incurring an IMMEDIATE and expensive fix. Another item: If the costs of materials go up the way they anticipate (Even Honda is raising the costs of cars due to metal costs), don't anticipate those $$ amounts to come close to the actual costs in two years. Putting things of only makes them MORE costly.
Dick Tuthill - May 14, 2008
First referendum results: No - 741; Yes - 392. So much for flying the budget under the radar. Now let the discussion begin. The boards can start by making their case right here in this forum.
Dick Tuthill - May 12, 2008
There has been very little online discussion so far this year. One wonders if this is a conscious effort to fly the budget below the radar in the hopes of catching the electorate asleep at the switch. We shall see.
As usual for a first attempt, this budget is way too high. To have the BoE budget go up by 6.6% in a year of school population decrease without some other significant cost driver like insurance, etc., is simply a huge disconnect. And for the Town budget to go up by 6.9% in a year of lower debt service expense is another disconnect.
We never seem to get serious about bringing forward a reasonable budget until after the third referendum. I suspect that this year will be the same.
David Rosicke - May 9, 2008
I hope nobody shoots down the contingency monies again. With the state struggling, other towns having to close schools in the middle of the year, and every economist I've read saying homeowners need a three-month minimum stash of cash, we as a town need to have money set aside for any issues that may arise. Obviously, three months' expenses at the town level sounds like WAY too much money (Last year they asked for $500,000 which is NOT three month's reserves!), which is why it always gets shot down. But all it takes is one major problem that is not a 'Disaster' as defined by the state and not covered by our Insurance and Bam! there goes the town - If we don't have reserves. An example of this is if fuel costs jump significantly - say 50 to 100% more than last year's budget. That could easily wipe out any reserve money before the budget year is over. I know that my heating fuel costs went up 34% in one year, even as I cut consumption by 17%.
Just my $.05 (Inflation, you know!)
