The Standard Times has an article today that the School Committee has voted to provide full day kindergarten with no tuition for the 2010-2011 school year. While I am fully in favor of providing early education, I am not sure that the town has the funds to start this program at this time.
My first thought about the suggested funding sources in the Standard Times article is that the School Committee is spending money that they are not sure that they will get. The Town Meeting is the only body that can authorize expenditures. The School Committee can certainly ask for funding for full day kindergarten, but whether or not the Town Meeting will approve is an open question.
After the first year of the full day kindergarten program, the increased student population will result in the state and town having to provide a higher dollar amount for required school spending since the formula is based on per student charges. I posted on the school budget process here. Since that post I have researched the state's school funding formulae a bit more (thanks particularly to Mr. Lynam of the Finance Committee for his explanations and input) and feel that I have a good handle on how it is done. The foundation budget is where the school contribution numbers begin. The state has formulae that assign a certain dollar amount to each of several categories of student. Those numbers are aggregated and that arrives at a foundation budget for the district. The foundation budget is the amount of spending that is required by the state, however it is not what the town must pay. Chapter 70 school aid spending reduces the amount that the local district has to pay. The formula for the town's contribution is relatively simple and is calculated by the town's contribution the prior year. The prior year contribution is multiplied by the Municipal Revenue Growth Factor (MRGF), adjusted for progress toward goals that the state has determined and that becomes the town's required contribution. The remainder is supposed to be funded by Chapter 70. The spreadsheet in MS excel format is available at this link.(Enter Dartmouth in the district or LEA code 72). The MRGF includes the increase in property tax of 2.5%, any new growth property taxes, and increases in local revenues such as local receipts. Local receipt revenue would include the hotel and meals tax. As a result, the increased local receipts from the meals and hotel tax will increase the local contribution required by the state because the MRGF used in the formula will reflect the added revenue. The town will have a higher school contribution requirement for that reason regardless of full day kindergarten. The state will also have a higher expenditure requirement because the foundation budget will increase by more than Dartmouth's MRGF amount. The state has set a local contribution goal of 82.5% for Dartmouth and every year they reduce the amount of Chapter 70 aid that we receive by 1% of the required local contribution amount. The reduction adds 1% of the local contribution amount to the town's requirement every year until the goal is reached. Last year, Dartmouth was at 74.52% for local contribution, 8.7% short of the state's target. The increased student population from full day kindergarten will add to the percentage that Dartmouth is short of the target. So while the state will initially bear most of the increased cost due to a higher foundation budget, over time that cost will be transferred to the town's contribution due to this 1% progress toward goal adder.
All that brings me to my second thought about full day kindergarten. There is little risk to the school department in forwarding this proposal. After the first year, the increase in student population will guarantee the school department increased funding due to the state's formula for school spending. The town however is not guaranteed added revenue to meet the required school spending. If the state requires more funding to the schools and the town does not have revenue to fund it, where will the money come from? The answer is ...
... the funds will have to be shifted from other town departments to the school department. Those other departments have already been squeezed for years as new growth has declined and due to recent reductions in local receipts and local aid. Shifting funding to the schools will mean less funding for all the other town departments. I think that shift means fewer services and/or more fees, or the need for a Prop 2-1/2 override to maintain the status quo.
Finally, the Select Board and Finance Committee had agreed upon a plan where the Town Meeting would be asked to put aside revenue in order to build toward an funding amount that could sustain full day kindergarten. I thought the School Committee had also endorsed that path. Last year, the Town Meeting began that process with a $230,000 appropriation to the Stabilization fund. The idea is to increase that amount each year until we are close to the funding needed to sustain the full day kindergarten program. Once that sustaining level of revenue had been reached, the town could implement full day kindergarten while maintaining all other departmental funding. The School Committee seems to have jumped the gun with this vote. The $230,000 in recurring revenue that the town has allocated is far short of the $598,582 needed for an estimated enrollment of about 200 students. As I pointed out, initially the bulk of that cost is borne by the state and is shifted over time onto the town. I also find the estimated student population increase puzzling. Over the past 20 years, Dartmouth schools have had about 280-300 children enter 1st grade each year. Why would there be only 200 in kindergarten? My asking that question is sure to generate all kinds of comments about why don't I just call and find out. To which I say, the School Committee, Select Board, and Finance Committee are meeting jointly tomorrow. That seems to me to be an ideal opportunity to have a discussion about the issues that I raised above and I had planned to raise the question there. I am disappointed that the School Committee did not wait until the budget process for FY 2011 had been fleshed out a bit more before announcing a major increase in spending. Perhaps my concerns will turn out to be unfounded and the funding will fall into place for all town departments. I hope so.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
School Committee proposes full day kindergarten
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Hi Bill. Just want to clarify something. At our last FinCom meeting (2/18), Greg Lynam had asked for a vote from the school committee and the SB to indicate that FDK is their top priority, so that as we work on the FY11 budget, we have some idea of what the "town's" priorities are - from the perspective of the elected bodies in town as the FinCom is not elected. So, I think the SC vote last night was intended to fulfill this request. It's, of course, more complicated than that, and the SB still needs to weigh in on this as well, but I'm not sure it's a clear cut case of the SC jumping the gun. Instead, I think they were trying to be responsive to the request made by Greg. I'm sure I'll get hammered for posting this, but I just want to get that out there.
Shannon it's ok...nobody gets hammered on this blog....LMAO
Shannon is exactly right;
There is a procedure to be followed. It starts with a department, any department, identifying their priority needs in furtherance of their mission. This is followed by the Select Board identifying that need as a goal for the community to achieve. The budgets are then crafted in order to further those goals.
School funding is an extremely complicated process so it is no wonder that errors are made whenever this subject is discussed.
The foundation formula is generated as Bill described but there is no connection between the foundation budget and the town's share of school funding with one caveat : It will push out the time until we reach the State's participation goal of 82.5% meaning in the long run we will pay for it, as Bill suggests.
The formula is simple : ( last years required local contribution) x (Municipal Revenue Growth Factor ). The only factor that includes the foundation amount is the 'catch-up' factor. This is a 1% increment for all communities whose local contributions are >5% below the foundation [ 2% if >10% away ] We are now < 5% and would still be below 5% after FDK thus there is no increment toward target presently or expected.
Because of past growth aid and a deflation percentage applied to the foundation amounts for FY11 there will be no additional funds from Ch # 70 added to the school budget for several years as a result of the increased enrollment from FDK . The town's share of local education funding will continue to rise each year as it normally would, FDK or no FDK. Both these assertions were confirmed in a conference call between Mr. Roger Hatch of DOE, School and Town officials and myself the other day.
Where will the money come from ?
Last fall the town meeting voted to fund a line item with $230K for eventual FDK operational support .. this line item with a suitable increment would be used to fund the FDK program. The details of shared funding between the school department and the General Government is still being fleshed out but there is no reason to believe that we can not work out the funding for this worthwhile program.
Will the funds come from other areas ? ... of course ! This is a zero sum game. Whenever we spend a dollar on 'A' it has to be taken from, or denied to, 'B'. It is a matter of identifying what is of more importance to you than something else. This program is a rare opportunity to apply money to education that will directly enhance the quality of learning for all +4,000 students over time while at the same time giving a couple hundred young families a year a break from the burdensome costs of day care, thereby improving their quality of life at the same time. What other expenditure can you envision that would have such a wide ranging impact on the quality of life for Dartmouth residents , present and future ?
Remember, today's 4 and 5 year olds will soon be choosing the nursing home you reside in ..... let's do what we can to insure they are smart enough to pick a good one :)
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Can someone PLEASE stand up for the rest of the town for a change? The school apparently has no difficulty constantly asking for money as soon as they smell a source and from the past decisions by FinCom AND the Select Board, no one in authority seems to have a problem giving them money when they ask for it.
Who watches out for us??
If the money has to come from somewhere, why do I get the feeling it will come from the town side? What are the schools going to give up to fulfill this #1 priority? Are the SC and parents ready to give up Kevin Lee's position?
I am in favor of FDK, but want to be sure we don't have to take from police, DPW, or other town depts. to do it.
Will the finance com. say that won't happen?
Once we have FDK, it cannot be taken away. Other depts. may have to suffer if we cannot sustain FDK.
Greg, please. They are not going to be choosing mine, and I doubt they will be old enough to even work in one when I am there!
Will today's baby boomers in town need some sort of assistance, financial or otherwise, some day, like sooner rather than later, do you suppose? It is not just the children that are up and coming in Dartmouth; I'm sure there is a senior population upcoming in a greater number than in prior years, as well.
Is anyone considering that population, and planning for it as thoroughly?
I think that the town should wait another couple of years to implement a FDK. We have been all these years with out one. What's another couple of years until we can be certain that the town can afford it. Two years ago we were at "bare bones". With all the cuts and new taxes that about to come can we do this now? Let's slow down and think about this.
Also in todays ST there was mentioned that $148,000.00 would be coming from tuitions from current based tuition based FDK program. I was under the impression that the tuition was to pay for this years expenditures for this years FDK. This
$148,000.00 won't be coming next year if the FDK is implemented. Another question I would like to know is how much is the town paying to fix up the Cushman school?
I have a feeling that there are some special interest groups involved here. Once the Cushman School is opened there will be a cry to add more classes bringing us back to the way it was a couple of years ago. I for one will not vote for another override.
Please people think long and hard on this one.
To Anon 5:36
"Who watches out for us ? "
Well, lets see :
I know it is not visible from the outside but we have made an unbelievable number of positive changes in Dartmouth in the past few years both in terms of management and facilities.
We have built up our Stabilization fund from mere pennies to over $4.5 mil. Not quite to target yet but within our grasp. This has given us a top notch rating that lowers borrowing costs while freeing up money so that the rest of 'us' can benefit.
Enhanced savings have given 'us' the ability to take on larger projects that lead to even more savings, lower our insurance rates and insulate 'us' from fiscal shocks, such as we experienced a few years ago lowering the need to increase taxes in the future.
Frugality has made it possible, in combination with state highway funds, to dedicate a steady $1 mil a year toward road repairs. We have spent $millions on energy efficiencies and HVAC upgrades at Town Hall. The savings from energy efficiencies have made it possible to replace many more inefficient heating plants in our public buildings that will save still more money for the rest of 'us' .
We upgraded police computers to the tune of $42,000 and purchased $1/4 mil in Police cruisers just in the past two years alone.
We have long term programmed yearly funding for handicap access projects throughout town, something we have never done before. We have funded and completed the Wellness center designed to provide health related services for all of 'us'.
We have installed emergency doors and upgraded the fire alarm systems in the Library building while commissioning a study of the HVAC systems for upgrade. We streamlined and overhauled our Library system itself, making it more efficient and responsive to the public at lower cost.
The list goes on for pages, but in the end we have spent more than $10.6 mil in direct support of 'us'.... and that is just for the last 3 years.
Yes ... we spent a little on schools too over the past three years.
We spent another $3.15 mil on, among other things, a reading series to improve the educational fortunes of our 2,800 elementary students. We committed an ongoing $200K a year in CIP technology upgrades to insure that all 4,000 students can work and learn on equipment that actually works. Never again will our computers and networks fall into disrepair.
We replaced hundreds of decades-old lockers in our middle school along with aging electrical panels, replaced windows in the Quinn school, replaced dangerous asbestos floors in several school buildings and install video security systems in all of them.
We upgraded lighting and heating systems to save money otherwise wasted and funded all the costs needed to renovate the buildings, purchase the supplies and fund most of the first years operating costs for a free full day Kindergarten program, a program that will ultimately benefit thousands of our younger citizens throughout their lives.
Today we are fiscally and managerially stronger than ever before with a direction and purpose never before experienced.
I think as a town we have done a darn good job of looking out for the rest of 'us', but now its time to look out for those who will eventually replace 'US'.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
To Anon 7:36
" It is not just the children ....I'm sure there is a senior population .... Is anyone considering that population, and planning for it as thoroughly? "
This is a participatory government. Seriously, I am not trying to be critical, but as corny as it sounds it is people like you with concerns and visions for our community that drive the funding to realize those visions. We all complain in broad terms of fixing education, helping seniors and so forth but when it comes to making specific proposals ... well that is harder than you think. No matter what you propose others will criticize because they have a different vision. It is extremely difficult, and takes enormous fortitude to focus on one thing and get it done before moving off to the next. This Select Board is the best we have had in many, many years but they put up with a lot of crap for their efforts. Some wording on this blog is a small example of that.
FDK is a specific proposal that was brought to attention by people just like you who had a vision. We need more people to articulate their concerns in specific terms and work to get it attention and ultimately accomplished. Lacking meaningful public input, nothing happens. The safest way to stay in office is to do nothing and feign concern. If we still had that type of Select Board we would still be mired in debt and seeking overrides to deal with it. We have some workers in office for a change .... let's put them to work by getting involved.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Typical blog BS -Throw something out there without information and get the bloganistas riled.
Good job Bill!!
I have mixed emotions regarding the processes outlined to make this happen. First of all, this would affect my family's situation for school year 2011-2012 directly. Our plan was to facilitate a FDK schedule for the family member whether it is free or not. Point being FDK concept supported. The question is the methodology. Re-opening the Cushman School to justify this is the issue. I would like to see where there have been other alternatives considered and what their costs would be.
To anon 10:59
I am glad you support the concept of FDK. To answer your question re: other options considered, the answer is yes other options had be thoroughly considered and they have been discussed at length at numerous SC and public meetings. We had over 45 people at one such public hearing at the Quinn school and another where over 90 interested people attended and asked questions at the Potter School. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have about the methodology. I can be reached at greg@gregjonesdps.net.
Thanks,
Greg Jones
Anon 10:59
{Re-opening the Cushman School to justify this is the issue.}
In the past we used State School Building Assistance funds to upgrade the windows and other portions of the Cushman building. Under State guidelines if we then abandon the building or use it for purposes other than a school we are obligated to return the >$300K in State money. That was one big factor.
The second was the condition of the building, which is excellent. The Gidley building is in need of a new boiler and other upgrades for which there is no Building assistance money and for which the cost is substantial. The State will not award assistance money for wood frame buildings. I know it does not look like it is wood frame but it is.
The busing is another consideration. The plan is for the 'K' students to ride with their siblings to an elementary school where possible. Staying on the bus they would then go to the Kindergarten. The Cushman is right down the street from the DeMello so busing is minimal and ride times are short. This is not the case for the Potter children but that could not be helped.
Additionally, being in close proximity to the DeMello, Administration, Art, Music and Nursing services can be shared thereby reducing the overall operating costs of the program.
The Cushman has been altered at a cost of <$225K specifically to be a Kindergarten. The facilities have been so altered as to make them unusable for elementary students under current State guidelines.
Minimal alterations were also made at Quinn to accommodate the additional students. Using current enrollment estimates, 10 Classrooms will be needed. There is just not enough space at Quinn to hold them all therefore the Cushman was needed for the overflow.
When looking at all the cost and cost savings ... the Cushman building was the only logical choice. It would cost $Hundred's of thousands of dollars per year more to use the Gidley.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
I, too, see the opening of the Cushman School as an issue. I was hoping that the town was finally moving into a less fragmented and more unified community. Of course, I do not believe that will ever totally happen, but there is so much room for improvement in those areas. My concern is this is a symbolic slap in the face to residents of other areas in the town. The answer for many decades has been to invest more evenly in the town school system as a whole. I certainly do not expect to fix decades of mistakes, but I do expect school system planning to be more objective now and in the future.
I agree with Mr. Lynam.
As the result of electing new SBM Dartmouth is on a positive path toward providing our town with fiscal responsibility.
As a result of appointing responsible members to the fincom. Dartmouth is enjoying a clear understanding of town department needs. Yes, this is all true. Know be careful...don't do anything stupid.
Warning to all; Some of the old time recking crew are looking to make a change on the SB.
Well, at least you are realistic in your outlook regarding that never happening.
I seem to remember that when FDK was presented to town meeting members for a vote, it was described as “vote for this line item which will only be used if we have the funding we need to implement the program.” Now it we must rob Peter to pay Paul to fund this critical need. I’m sorry, but I do not see the point in funding something the town simply cannot afford! This feels like a classic bait and switch technique.
Why can't there be at least a couple of FDK classes at Potter School? Could anyone answer the question from anon 11:01 (Wednesday) about the $148,000 from FDK tuition ?
To Anon 8:07
{I seem to remember that when FDK was presented to town meeting members for a vote, it was described as “vote for this line item which will only be used if we have the funding we need to implement the program.”}
The funding pieces approved at the fall TM were designed in such a way as to require spring Town Meeting approval of the funds to purchase the books, desks and materials needed to proceed with FDK.
Additionally the Town Meeting will have to approve the line item funding the General Governments portion of the operating costs, the school department will also be picking up a portion within their normal budget. Because this is a separate line item appropriation above NSS, Town meeting will have to reauthorize this expenditure each year. This assures proper accounting of the program costs to Town Meeting.
Concerning the afford-ability / sustainability of the program, we are still working on that piece of the puzzle. As I indicated elsewhere, we are early in the process as State and local revenue receipts are not yet certain. These can, and will, vary by several hundred thousand dollars yet. It will be at least two more months before either the school department or the General Government have a better handle on available revenues.
Someone else on this blog correctly observed that the $148K overage currently held in the FDK revolving fund is only available one year. The funding scheme currently under consideration would require the General Fund to increment the FDK line item for both FY11 and again for FY12 before leveling off in subsequent years. The one-time $148K would be used to supplement the FY11 funding thereby reducing the amount needed from both the school department budget and the General Fund. Incremental increases in funding from the School department and the General Government in FY 12 would be sufficient to carry the program from then on absent the one-time infusion of that $148K.
After FY 12 a yearly increase of about 5% / yr in operational costs are expected and will be reflected in the funding requests of both entities.
All that said, this is a work in progress and this is what the picture looks like at this particular point in time. Nothing is set in stone ... or even in mud.
We are all working very hard to bring this about for the taxpayers in a fiscally responsible manner.
.. stay tuned.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
I think most would agree that full day-k is a great program for Dartmouth. The fin. com, s.c., and s.b. are in favor of this program. Now, we have to work together to find the money. I am positive that if all these groups work together, we can find the money to begin full day-k in September.
Regarding "a couple of classes at Potter"
There are specific requirements for FDK...if it is tuition based, then the town must also offer free half day. This is true even if the tuition is on a sliding scale. The funding is the difficult piece that all are working to achieve.
Where would you like to start cutting from the town's budget?
Where will you cut from the school's budget?
The schools will continue to suck the town dry. I think the schools have received quite a bit in an already stretched budget. Transportation fees, school activity fees, the learning materials Greg Lynam listed which I have no problem with at all. At least the money went for the children and not salaries. What part of "we cannot afford it" don't they understand. I would also like to know what the administration and teachers are willing to give up to make this happen. Anyone want to talk about contract negotiations???
I have every confidence that the nine persons I've appointed to the Finance Committee will only recommend what they feel the Town can afford. They are an exceptionally talented and hard-working group. They will work through this issue in a methodical, thoughtful manner.
I'm absolutely certain that no member of the FinCom would want to jeopardize or undo the town's newfound position of (relative) fiscal stability. They're not reckless. All of them know that it's taken too long, and too much pain, to get where we are. None of them would ever do anything to undo the town's fiscal progress.
Please take a look at the FinCom's record of achievement, a small portion of which has been outlined in prior comments by FinCom member Greg Lynam. It's a solid record.
Steve Sharek
Town Moderator
It is supposed to come from meals/hotel tax and and overrides, among other things. Are you surprised? Don't be.
Yes, the dreaded "o" word has been resurrected to help sustain the FDK year after year.
The question about why not FDK at the Potter School seems quite valid. I believe the enrollment there is more than the DeMello School. I know it is unrealistic to solve major infrastructure issues at the Potter School in the short term. However, busing 5 year old children to the Quinn School from areas all over North Dartmouth is certainly not an optimum situation.
Mr. Lyman,
Could you please explain where the $148,000.00 overage currently held in the FDK revolving account came from? Hopefully not from the parents of the current FDK who paid tuition for this year. To my knowledge that tuition was to pay for this years tuition.
To Anon 9:48
Q: Could you please explain where the $148,000.00 overage ..in the FDK revolving account came from?
A: Frankly I had wondered the same thing, to be honest.
I do know that the pricing of the program as weighed against the costs is not an exact science. There are tuition wavers for those qualifying for free lunch, for example, along with other accommodations made for those whose circumstances might otherwise make it impossible for them to afford the tuition. These were set up to provide equal access for everyone within the limits of available facilities.
The problem is that it can never be known ahead of time what numbers of students qualifying for these tuition offsets will actually show up for class in the fall, or for that matter how many students will show up at all. Hence the tuition amounts collected do not exactly match the costs incurred ... and you dare not underestimate and run out of funds.
I will run this explanation by Greg Jones and ask that he further detail the answer either to me or to you.
One of us will report back. Thank you for asking.......
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
To Anon 6:43
You said :
{It is supposed to come from meals/hotel tax ...the dreaded "o" word has been resurrected to help sustain the FDK year after year.}
You were obviously at Thursday night's joint budget meeting of the Fin Com, S/B & S/C.
The 'Meals Tax' reference is used as a metaphor for any 'new' funds available to the town that are in addition to what was expected. The global idea is to live within our expected means while using those funds that come from extra-ordinary sources for extra-ordinary purposes that improve the quality of life for all of Dartmouth's citizens.
In keeping with that line of thinking, for FY10 the Fin Com and Select Board used the unexpected increase in revenue from the 'Meals Tax' to halve Beach and Park fees for everyone while halving School Athletic fees and zeroing out School Transportation fees for thousands of our friends and neighbors with school age children. We budgeted the remaining $230K for support of a FDK program for FY 11 ... all from this 'new' recurring revenue that would otherwise have been spread back into a $68 mil budget with nary an effect or notice.
In regard to "the dreaded 'O' word " ... the Fin Com necessarily encourages wide ranging discussions on wide ranging subjects and ideas that speak to not only today's problems and situations but possibilities far in the future.
The ability of people to freely discuss the, at times, outrageous .. is necessary. If we can't feel free to probe the outer edges of the box: how do we find the center ?
What you failed to report was that although that subject was broached and duly noted, as it needs to be, it was also rejected.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
on this subject there is mention by Mr Lynam that "Frugality has made it possible, in combination with state highway funds, to dedicate a steady $1 mil a year toward road repairs."
I am pleased to hear this. However I reside in the area of Faunce Corner Rd in the North part of town North of the Old Fall River Road. And for those who travel this road, it is obvious that none of the funds are spent on road repair in this section of town.
There are numerous pot holes between Flag Swamp Rd and High Hill road that the only care they receive is the placement of some loose agregate in them which after a few days of vehicular traffic opens the holes again.
The folks in this part of town are also taxpayers and voters and it would be nice if the powers that be spread some of the monies earmarked for road repair in this part of town as well as the others.
Perhaps you Mr. Trimble as one of our selectmen could make an appeal on our behalf, before someone attempting to avoid or does hit one of these pot holes' is injured.
You are right, Greg. I am glad you pointed that out. My intent was not to leave the impression that an override was the only source for funding, nor that it had been approved and voted on for funding FDK. I apologize if I've misled anyone.
I merely wanted to alert residents to the possibility that an override may be asked for in the future for FDK funding, and that they shouldn't get complacent and then be surprised if they are asked to vote on accepting or rejecting it. Sometimes we are so engrossed in the latest issue before the town and forget that we need to remember the past and learn from it.
To Anon 1:02
Your right to be vigilant .. point taken, thank you.
To Anon 11:26
DPW superintendent Dave Hickox put together a plan of needed roadway repairs for us [ Fin Com ] last year [ 12/08 ] . It details road by road, and by priority and cost, the repairs needed all over town. It first lists the backlog of roads that are in need of immediate attention and the time line needed to get them done. Immediate being defined as over the next four years.
The report goes beyond four years and shows a steady $1 mil a year in roadwork, virtually forever. We have 190.14 miles of public ways and they constantly age, as we all do :)
The DPW has done the best they could with what they had, but like a great many other things around town, funding for road work had been ignored for many, many years.
The Fin Com decided to set a Capital Improvement Plan in place that would adjust our funding yearly against State Highway funds such that $1 mil a year would be steadily dedicated to getting this work done along the timeline Dave laid out. So what is that time line ?
I'm not familiar with the street numbering in your area but I can tell you what the plan for northern Faunce Corner road calls for:
Old Fall River Rd to # 760 is a priority #5:RM
#760 - 798 is a Priority #4:RM
#798 - High Hill Rd is Priority #3:PM
Priority 3 = 4-7 yr time frame
Priority 4 = 6-9 yr time frame
Priority 5 = 10+ yr time frame
RM = Routine Maint : Crack & Pothole work
PM = Preventive Maint :Thin overlay & sealing
Roads that take the highest priority are those in danger of needing total reconstruction if not attended to soon. Failure to make these repairs in a timely manner causes huge increases in the work and the cost.
That said, plan or no plan if there are dangerous pot holes in the roadway that recur often I suggest you call a Select Person. They would know the proper channels to take to get a clearer time line for you.
I hope this has been of some help.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
So far, the School Committee has come up with three different ways to fund full day kindergarten with recurring revenues. They are the meals tax revenue, designating their turnbacks for FDK, and reinstating bus transportation fees. While I would agree that they are entitled to some of the Meals Tax revenues and that the other two funding sources are intricately school related, all three of these sources are General Fund monies.
Reinstating bus fees was met with much resistance at the joint meeting so I think that's out.
I hope that we will find an ageeable way to support FDK sustainably and I support adding this for our young families if we can.
However, I would feel much better if the School Committee could find some funding for FDK within their own budget. It is after all, their top priority.
I realize that this post might, maybe, possibly could be controversial, so hammer away and I'll check in tomorrow.
Why did the school committee eliminate fees if they intended to eventually institute FDK? Even having these discussions seems insane considering the precarious future we face economically! Reinstate the fees, and then assess the budget to see if the school budget can stretch to afford it. Stop looking outside your budget for the mony!
"like a great many other things around town, funding for road work had been ignored for many, many years."
Greg, that is actually a sad, but very telling statement. We've all heard that things have gone by the wayside and ignored over the years, to the detriment of necessities that would benefit and should benefit the entire community, road repair being one of them. The fact that things have been ignored and now command a hefty price tag to catch up to suggests a lack of foresight, at least in my opinion.
The question is, WHY?
I have been led to understand that the town was doing well financially at one time. So, what happened? It surely can't be blamed entirely on the economy or even on escalating costs for health care, pensions, etc. We all have faced and are facing escalating costs that deplete our money, as well, and anyone can read in the newspapers on a daily basis the toll it is taking on homeowners, to name just one victim of the economic crisis.
Dartmouth's financial woes didn't just occur overnight.
When the town had money, WHERE DID IT GO TO? The town at one time apparently did have money. Where was it spent, if it were not spent on the necessary improvements and resources that should have been kept up (including on the school level) because the town (and school) needed them?
In 2007, suddenly the school is in such dire straits that a huge $8.5 million override was requested, followed by smaller override requests, all of which failed. Departments all were facing deficits; some override requests failed, others did not when the second round of voting for them took place. (And yet we saw the library's ongoing resistance to decrease its spending, even after it got its override.)
Now there is a "demand" by the school that the Select Board put FDK its #1 priority for funding. Just how does anyone on the school side think that making FDK a #1 priority for the Select Board is representing the ENTIRE Dartmouth community which, if they don't already know, is precisely why the people elected the Board members to begin with.
"No" apparently is in no one associated with the school's vocabulary. They are intent on chipping away at the General Fund, no matter what the cost to the remainder of the community and irregardless of the fact that the money is just that, general funding for the "general" public. It is almost pitiful.
I applaud Ms. Jenkins' ability to remain calm in the brunt of such verbal haranguing. And I admire her ability (as well as yours all these years!!) to directly confront the school side and ask just how THEY will contribute to FDK funding.
Turnback money on their part should not automatically go back to the school. Why, when there is money that someone else has not yet spent, or a new source of revenue (meals tax) found, the school is the first to have its collective hands out for a piece (at least half, of course) of it?
Why does the school automatically feel it is entitled to take from the rest of the community's residents? Because that is precisely what it looks like. Again, pitiful.
Is it any wonder the taxpayers are fed up?
I agree with Mr. Walker. I am in favor of full day k, but it is unfair to ask the town employees to take all the cuts to help fund it. It should be shared by ALL because it will ultimately benefit ALL.
I isn't fair to ask the town employees to cut when the teachers refuse to help out. I respect teachers and union, but when things get tight, we ALL need to share in the process.
To Anon 11:09
Q: Why did the school committee eliminate fees if they intended to eventually institute FDK?
A: The school committee never did really eliminate the fees. The $91K in transportation fees were paid by the General fund to the school department on behalf of the students and their families with the condition that the fees would not be charged to the students.
Additionally half of the $114K in estimated athletic / activity fees [ $57K ] were also paid to the school department by the General Fund on behalf of the students and their families with the condition that the student activity fees would be halved.
You will find these transfers on last falls town meeting warrant: Articles # 2 & 8 respectively.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
It's not just the town employees. We all suffer when the money comes out of the general fund and we give it to the schools every time they ask for it and in the amount they ask.
To Anon 1:23
You make several good points ... each one is a book unto itself so I will just pick one :
You said : "Dartmouth's financial woes didn't just occur overnight."
You are absolutely right .... just a little off on the time line.
You are also right to say the economic downturn, although not helpful, was not the cause.
When I was first appointed I spent nearly a year researching just how we managed to get into this growing mess. The data shows it all started back in 2002 when State Aid began to be cut back - but we didn't. At that time, and really as late as 4 years ago, the town was managed under the theory, " We need to just get through this year. "
There were no projections, no forward looks. Select board members of the times awarded salary and benefit changes and incremented department budgets along the lines of what was 'necessary' with complete ignorance and disinterest of the future ramifications of doing so. To be frank the Fin Com was also kept in the dark as to our true fiscal position. We would see each piece without seeing how it fit into the whole or the future.
A municipality is prohibited by State law from running a deficit so when the budgets were assembled each year the only way to pay for these things was to use the one-time fall revenues that would normally go to capital improvements and maintenance. As revenues continued to fall ever further, we continued to spend ever more while reducing capital spending to match.
Fin Com put a stop to the hidden salary increases you, as a town meeting member, didn't even realize you were voting for. We forced greater transparency and better information presentation. With the help of that State Audit we managed to alter spending such that operational costs were paid for from recurring revenue while capital needs were paid from one-time non-recurring monies - as it should be. Salary changes will now include the cost of benefits too. Today things are much, much better, but still lacking.
Unfortunately the decisions that give rise to these problems take time to manifest themselves such that those responsible are out of office by the time they are noticed. In our case the house of cards collapsed at the end of 2006. 2007 was the first year ever that we were unable to pay our bills and deep cuts in services were needed. Pay-as-you-go and overrides necessarily followed to correct the effects of past practices. The 8.5 mil override attempt - well that is a whole other story :)
We finally have a Select Board that spends a lot of time at the Fin Com and understands our fiscal situation very well. They made the sweeping changes in management that were needed to put us on a different track. Today we are not only aggressively addressing those capital needs, some of which I listed above, but we are improving our planning and goal setting. Providing FREE full day kindergarten services for our children and families along with fee reductions / eliminations for beaches and bussing should be among those goals, in my humble opinion.
For FY 11 we are estimating General Government revenue of $58,862,277 [ excluding CH # 70 school aid ] . Make no mistake about it, we will always spend every single penny we get. The only real question worth asking is, "What will we spend it on ?"
We can repeat the past and spread it thinly into existing budgets, as was always done ... or we can consciously use it to better the living conditions for our Town's citizens. We are trying to do the latter.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
I trust Greg Lynam.
Having said this, I need Mr. Lynam to state for the record that the town can afford this FDK or will it cause a fiscal cries that the town can't sustain financialy.
To Frank 11:09
You said : I need Mr. Lynam to state for the record that the town can afford this FDK.
I believe it will turn out to be so, but neither I nor anyone else can give that total assurance at this point in time.
This early in the budget season neither our State aid numbers, or our local receipt numbers, are reliable enough to make a determination of what our available revenues will ultimately be. These numbers are still in flux to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars one way or the other.
It will be a couple more months before the picture even begins to get clearer. This holds just as true for the school department as it does for the General Government.
We will continue to work on the problem and as time goes on the picture will get clearer and firmer.
.... stay tuned
Greg Lynam
On Feb 26 9:48 Anon asked :
Q: Could you please explain where the $148,000.00 overage ..in the FDK revolving account came from?
In my answering post on Feb 27 7:20 AM I said "One of us will report back."
In the mean time there has been a lot of discussion about this. The bottom line is that the answer lies in the accounting method used to tally the costs. Mr. Cordeiro, school business manager, has volunteered to more clearly explain this at the select board meeting tonight 3/8/10.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Mr. Lynam,
Thanks for getting back on my question. However, I watched the SB meeting tonight and unless I missed something I did not hear an answer about the $148,000.00 for FDK. I will try to watch the SC meeting to see if it is addressed then.
To Anon 10:50
You said : I watched the SB meeting tonight and unless I missed something I did not hear an answer about the $148,000.00 for FDK.
I was sitting right there and I didn't hear it either and I forgot to bring it up. I believe the events of the evening just overshadowed that "tid-bit" :(
Sure to come up tonight ....think ?
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
Please watch the SC meeting on Tuesday evening. When Mr. Lynam and I met with Dr. Russell and Mr. Cordeiro, they promised us an answer by Tuesday and that it would be clarified and presented to the SC.
Thank you Mr. Lynam and Mr. Nunes. I did watch the SC meeting and was glad to see that there was an error and that the amount was around $73,000.00. Which means that some of the tuition money did go into this years FDK. That brings another question to mind. Now that the FDK left over money is about $73,000.00 and not $148,000.00 (a differance of $75,000.00)where will that extra amount come from?
It scares me a bit to think what the year 2012 will bring for the town. I know in my own life I would love to buy a new house, car or go on a great vacation but I would never do it knowing that I don't have the money to pay for it.
The SC, SB, and Fin Com have all decided to make FDK a priority. Why not make the towns people your priority? An override has been mentioned lately. Suppose the voters don't vote for one. Then what??? An override will never pass in this town.
I am in need of some further clarificaqtion of where this years FDK pilot tuition went. I am currently paying $300 a month for my child to attend. I am pretty furious with the fact that this money or even a portion of this money will be used to offset the cost of next years FREE full day kindergarten and/or help to pay for the Cushmain School renevations. That was not the intention of the tuition and I feel strongly that left over money it should be returned to the families who paid it!
To Anon March 27, 2010 8:45 AM
You said : "I am currently paying $300 a month for my child to attend. I am pretty furious with the fact that this money or even a portion of this money will be used to offset the cost of next years FREE full day kindergarten"
... so would I, were I you. I raised that very question and it has resulted much heated discussion. Numbers are wonderful things, they can be manipulated to show any result you want to see ; what you now see is just the latest result.
Unfortunately the S/B and the Fin Com have no say over that matter but I can tell you how the 'excess' is planned to be used.
As of 3/25/10 the Fin Com [ general government ] has dedicated $300K in the FY11 budget to the FDK operating expenses. This is a rise of $70K from the allocation made in FY10 as planned and as town meeting was told last fall that we would recommend.
There was no intent on 'our' part to begin FREE FDK this fall because we would not have the full funding available by this time. That said, the school department has voted this a priority need and has budgeted $252K of FY11 school funds toward the estimated $598,582 in FREE FDK operating costs needed to begin the program in Sept 2010. The added kindergarten enrollment will cause a shift of education funding away from the vocational school and towards our local schools of about $47K for FY12. That shift lags by one year so the General Government will add a one-time shot of $47K for FY11, from one-time revenues. These all total to the required $598,582 .
For FY12 it is planned that a smaller additional increase in the General Government's contribution, of an as yet undecided amount, will be necessary and ditto for the schools. This is where the 'revolving fund' comes in.
The residual monies in this fund ( left over from your generous contribution :) is to serve as a 'stabilization fund' of sorts to guarantee that gyrations in future school funding do not place funding of FDK in jeopardy. Yearly contributions by the schools from their departmental 'leftovers' at years end would be sent to this revolving fund in order to maintain this 'reserve'. The reserve would then be available to them to draw from for FDK, if needed to preserve other educational programs system wide.
That's the story as of our last meeting on 3/25/2010.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
I agree with 8:45. In all due respect Mr. Lynam, I would expect that the excess money from this years FDK should be paid back to the families that were over charged. If I sent you to the store to buy something for me for $10.00 and gave you $20.00 I would expect you to return $10.00 to me. If you kept it you would be "stealing". Is there a difference here? I feel like there is a fox in the hen house. I am sure that the SC knew what they were doing when they overcharged. Why should 60 families pay for a portion of this program?
To Anon 11:25
You said : " In all due respect Mr. Lynam, I would expect that the excess money from this years FDK should be paid back to the families that were over charged. "
I thought I was clear ... I agree 200% with you, no question about it.
This is not a private business with outside investment. These buildings are already owned by the citizens [ parents ] and the personal are already being paid by the citizens [ parents ]so to charge them for services utilizing facilities and labor they already own is not proper.
That said, if there were additional costs associated with providing the service above what is already being paid for then it would be proper to charge for the added expenditures.
This is a function of the School Committee. Neither the Select Board nor the Fin Com have any say in the matter.
Greg Lynam
Why should the rest of us get cheaper BEACH STICKERS? How many of us use them or would buy them now even though they are halved?
How is that "giving back to the community," Mr. Watson?
I could care less about beach stickers.
Take the easy way out. There WERE other measures you (Select Board) could have taken to give the money back to ALL the taxpayers, not just s select segment of residents, but that might have taken a bit more WORK.
Is it legal to charge parents for FDK and use their money to start up FDK for 2011? The parents were under the impression that this was to fund FDK for THEIR children. I wonder if a little legal advice should be checked into. It seems as if the parents were misinformed. ( or used).
Is it legal for the school dept.to make a profit on misinformed parents, then use the money to support the next FDK?
Bill,
Do you think it would be possible to start a misc. blog for different topics that people may want to discuss?
Post a Comment