Hebron Dollars & Sense

Since the room was probably FLOODED with supporters of ADK - it should have been interesting. Anyone who attended, please let us know what happened. The minutes for these meetings are so truncated. Thanks!

"Silver Era Scare Tactics" You Say

And People Wonder why I Use The Monikker "Slick Billy With Heels" Right??

The "Soviet Republic Of Ellie" Is In Full Bloom With Her Misleading Propaganda Campaign About A Zero Based Budget Request.

I'm OK With Sending A Note To Parents About The Meeting, BUT, Make It Factual & TRUTHFULL & This One OBVIOUSLY Is Obscuring The REAL FACTS Of The Matter As To When They FIRST KNEW ABOUT THE ZERO BASED REQUEST.

"Slick Willy" Must Have Left A "HOW TO BAMBOOZLE The Public" Manual Behind When He Left & "Slick Billy with Heels" Has Read It Cover To Cover

Here is a summary of what happened at last night's (2/8) joint meeting of BOS/BOF/BOE/RHAM.

Last night's meeting started with no one stepping up for public comment.

Fact filled presentation by Board of Finance Chair, Michael Hazel, that covered:
+ the realities of the town's fund balance (essentially as low as it can be and still keep the current bond rating)
+ the debt service schedule (maxed out for another 1.5 years until Hebron comes off the sewer debt followed by a lowering of the RHAM debt within a year of that)
+ summary of the collection rate history (down from 100.59% in 06-07 to 99.36% in 08-09; over 100% is possible because of collecting previous years taxes)
+ summary of revenue collection history with some discussion focused around $689K of combined state and federal stimulus that is helping the ECS revenue for 09-10 and 10-11 but is likely to lessen or disappear after that
+ summary of delinquent tax history
+ summary of tax abatement (deferment) program
+ summary of grand list growth (0.164% for '08; 0.65% for '09)
+ pie chart of the 09-10 budget divided by Hebron BOE, RHAM BOE, RHAM Debt, Town Debt, CIP, Open Space, General Government
+ bar graph comparing General Government, Hebron BOE, RHAM BOE for past 6 fiscal years
+ discussion about Hebron's share of the RHAM budget increasing from 52.81% to 54.14% due to an increased population shift for Hebron students attending the Regional High School

All boards and town staff who were present agreed that revenues and budgets are still a moving target. Currently, there is an estimate of a 1.32% potential tax increase based on decreased revenues (as outlined in Mr. Hazel's presentation) if all budgets came in at 0% increase over last year.

The point was made by members of both the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectmen that this was their attempt to have an open and reasonable dialogue during budget season.
The intent was to avoid reactionary attitudes like those that occurred at meetings during last year's budget planning.
It was suggested that these types of revenue projections be provided to the two education boards quarterly to avoid the situation where a budget has been voted on before this information is available.
There was some debate about whether or not 0% budgets had been requested at a December meeting that occurred between the BOF and the BOE.
The BOE wanted it to be clear that 1 Feb 2010 was the first they had heard of this 0% increase target.

The boards agreed to open the meeting to public comment at the end:
+ Dick Shea from Marlborough's BOF said their current budget situation is closer to a 4% potential tax increase if all of their budgets come in with a 0% increase
+ Public questions arose about the BOE budget mostly directed at the increase of "fixed costs" that were associated with negotiated salaries
+ Public comment suggesting that it was clear that at the joint December meeting of the BOF and BOE there was a request for a 0% BOE budget

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the issue of the BOE email to parents was addressed by Chairman Hazel. He clearly stated that such actions "do not help the process."

The meeting was meant to be one in which our elected officials could basically give a "state of the state" address on Hebron's financial condition. We believe the Board of Finance members did an excellent job in presenting all the information they have to date, even though the picture is definitely not pretty.

In hindsight, we may be in even worse shape next year because this year we have a number of one-time "stimulus" monies that will NOT be there next year. That issue will be explored.

It's disturbing that the BOE would claim to not have known about the 0% request from the BOF. First, as a citizen, I know about this mandate. Shouldn't our board members be even more sensitive/engaged in the budgetary process?

Second, if the BOE didn't know of this requirement, then why does this presentation address a 0% increase on slide 32?

www.hebron.k12.ct.us/uploaded/Hebron_Dis...1_Dec_2009_final.pdf

Clearly they were addressing 0% on Dec. 10th for a reason. That reason is the BOF's directive.

What I am hearing is that the spokesperson for the BOE either wasn't listening or wants to ignore the directives from the BOF. Both of which are unacceptable.

Whether the BOE knew or didn't know of an informal verbal (as early as 12/10) or formal written (2/1) request, they are certainly aware of the impact of the education budget on the overall town budget. When the initial budget discussions were held in early December, the powerpoint slides showing possible ways to achieve a zero percent increase meant elimination of existing programs and reducing positions - something the BOF and BOS also very clearly indicated that they were not asking for at this time.

The fact remains that contracted salaries and benefits account for the vast majority of the BOE budget. These expenses will increase next year according to terms of the 3 year collective bargaining agreement. The BOE cannot publicly address details of its request to the teacher's union for a potential re-opening of the CBA to address a potential modification of the terms of the contract, perhaps to defer the scheduled salary increases or ask for other concessions. Public discussion of this nature is prohibited as an unfair labor practice.

So, the BOE has been given informal guidelines to keep its budget as low as possible. They presented their proposed budget, keeping the programs they had previously approved, including the expansion of the ADK project as previously planned. I don't think its a "didn't know" about the requested zero percent increase, nor is it a "didn't care", but it is more of a "didn't yet have an opportunity to explain why they couldn't resolve the conflicting demands, those of zero increase and zero cuts. Zero increase does not equal zero cuts in staff. The BOE chose zero cuts. A BOF member is supposed to attend the BOE meetings as an observer, and report back to the BOF about the ongoing discussions. Unless I am missing it, the BOF meeting minutes do not indicate that this information is being considered.

Mr. Hazel's comments that the actions like the e-mail from the administration "do not help the process" are way off base. Anything that informs more voters as to what is the process, who does what, and when, is helpful. I was not present for the discussion, and it may be that he was concerned about the choice of the words "just informed" in the email - and perhaps it was part of an earlier draft email that had been circulated among various BOE members before distribution - I'm guessing. In any event, if they had used the words "only recently been formally notified" the result would have been the same.

If Mr. Hazel and the BOF was concerned about parents appearing en masse at a budget meeting, they should think again. The more folks that get involved, the better. We've had too much apathy as it is.

For the most part, I agree that the BOF is trying to help the BOE, providing them information to use in their potential re-opening of the collective bargaining agreement. Unless the teachers re-open the contract and give concessions, we are looking at either a tax increase or cuts to programs. The BOE seems to want to try asking for a tax increase first, and if that doesn't fly with the voters (only a few of whom get out to vote), only then will they consider cutting positions and programs.