BCS Adopts Budget With A 1.98% Tax Levy Increase

by Thaddeus Flint
The Berlin School Board adopted a $17,438,900 budget for 2012-2013 at the workshop meeting Tuesday, and it will now go to the residents for their approval. The Capital Project bond authorization, however, though already approved by the residents, was once again blocked for the fourth time by three Board members who remain adamant in their opposition.
[private]The new budget is $64,500 greater than the budget from 2011-2012, but $27,977 less than what was projected at the previous budget meeting held on April 3. “We didn’t like to reduce it,” said Dr. Stephen Young, the District’s Superintendant of Schools, “but we had to.” The latest cuts included the elimination of a technology teaching position and a science teaching position. Two bus driver positions will be eliminated by combining runs, and two vacant transportation positions have also been eliminated. The District also plans to reduce BOCES expenditures for special education as well as a District-wide study and to cut costs in text books. Legal and auditing fees will also be scaled back. The budget still includes:
• programs to reduce the drop-out rate;
• maintaining all academic programs;
• maintaining all athletics, extracurricular and other student activities;
• improving and upgrading technology infrastructure;
• implementing a preventative maintenance program in schools;
• continuing 21st century teaching and learning initiatives;
• increasing professional development;
• maintaining favorable class sizes;
• the addition of a School Within a School Program which would concentrate on those students who might be left behind without a specialized academic environment;
• the addition of 21st Century Skills Program for ninth-graders;
• the addition of a secondary Special Education reading teacher for grades 6-9, and
• the addition of a .5 secondary art teacher.
Tax Levy Increases 1.98%
The tax levy will be increased by 1.98%. While this is 1.98% larger than the 0% increase residents have enjoyed the previous three years, it is still significantly lower than the 3.009% potential maximum increase allowed to the District under the State’s 2% tax cap mandate. It is also .33% less than the projected tax levy increase discussed at the last budget meeting. According to the District’s Business Manager, William Burke, the 2011-2012 true tax rate for the District was “the lowest in Rensselaer County,” and even with the increase it is likely to remain so.
A resident with property assessed at $100,000 would have paid around $1,372 in school taxes this year. Next year that amount is estimated to be $1,399, an increase of $27.
Not everyone on the Board was satisfied with budget presented to them. Board Member Bev Stewart wanted to know why an efficiency report the District paid $30,000 for was not allowed to be discussed. “We wanted it for the Budget,” said Stewart, “and now its hush-hush.”
In January the Board approved (with Stewart the sole Board member voting against it) the Capital District Area School Development Association (CASDA) from Albany to perform an efficiency and effectiveness audit of the District in order to find ways it could save money in the future.
Young told the Board on January 18 that the report would be ready for the upcoming budget talks. Board Member John Nash agreed to the study saying, “This information could be invaluable going into the budget season.”
It might have been, but the report was only delivered to the District on Monday. “Do we know what the holdup was?” asked Stewart. “It took five weeks instead of four,” responded Young. A week would have been better than a day for Stewart, who voiced concern that some Board members might have “dragged their feet” when it came to providing CASDA with information they needed to complete the study. Stewart also remembered being told at the previous meeting that a decision on the budget could be put off until the budget hearing on May 8. The Board was now being informed that a decision was needed before Friday.
Board Member Alan Webster Jr. perceived the Budget as the first step of a five year plan toward increasing spending by as much as $2.2 million. “When I look at that plan, I don’t feel very confident about the five year outlook of the District,” said Webster. “It would definitely make me think twice about moving into this District.”
Burke explained that the five year plan was “just an estimate” and that many factors in it possibly could change “I was very conservative,” he said of his calculations. Burke calculated that State Aid would increase by only 1% per year. “We are not as bad as some Districts,” consoled Burke. Nobody looked very consoled when Burke added, “We won’t be the first District to go over the edge.”
The vote on the Budget resulted in Board President Gina Goodermote and Board Members John Nash, Jim Willis, Rachel Finney and Frank Zwack voting for it. Only Webster and Stewart against it.
Bond Authorization Blocked Again
Webster and Stewart were joined by Nash when the vote came up, for the fourth time in a row, to authorize a $5.1 million bond for the Capital Project. The three Board members voted against the authorization, effectively stalling repairs to the Berlin Elementary School. With a 2/3rds majority needed in order for the resolution to pass and with neither side likely to give in, this could be a tradition at BCS Board meetings for the foreseeable future. Young said, “We will continue this until it gets approved, or we move on.” As the elementary school is not going to fix itself, it is difficult to see how the Board could just “move on.” Residents have already approved the project. “I believe whole-heartedly we have to listen to the taxpayers and voters,” said Young, who believes the health and safety of the students should come before the contentions of the Board.
Nash, Webster and Stewart are not united against a safer facility. Stewart herself has children who attend school in the building. What they are against is the way the project was put together. After years spent studying the future footprint of the District, the Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) was dissolved and the current plan put together in a few short months by Goodermote and Willis with the advice of Young, who had just arrived in the District.
Nash felt that not only were Board members rushed into approving a plan that does not take into consideration a long-term outlook for the future of the District, but the public was rushed into a referendum they knew very little about. Having that referendum in December, Nash believes, ensured low voter turnout. “This is not a representative sample of voters,” said Nash. “The community did not decide.”
Young pointed out that the plan was discussed at several Board meetings, available on the District’s website, in the newspaper and that he then went out and discussed it at town meetings in each of the five towns. “I can’t get to every single citizen,” he said, “but I think I got out there enough.”
Stewart said she still wants a special meeting on the subject before she will even consider changing her vote. Goodermote didn’t want to hear anymore. She continually tried to call for a vote while Stewart continually called out “point of order!” Finally Goodermote said, “If you would stop saying point of order and just make your point!” Stewart’s point was that she was not part of the discussion on the proposal and that neither were most of the voters, especially due to the dissolution of the LAC.
Webster finished the dispute by saying, “To simplify the argument that we don’t care about the health and safety of the students is heinous.” For Webster it is about the sustainability of the District. “We are on a crash course for very unfortunate times,” he said.
Candidates For Election
The upcoming election for two seats on the Board is unlikely to achieve the needed 2/3rds majority either. Goodermote and Finney, who both voted for the Bond, are running for re-election in May. School District Clerk Mary Grant announced that their three year seats will be contested by Shelly Bedford of Grafton and Katie Fiske of Petersburgh. This will be the first year that the District’s School Board seats are “at large,” which means that the two candidates with the most votes will be elected to the Board.[/private]