Guest Contribution by Arthur Green
The Timberlane budget going forward to public hearing (Jan. 15) and Deliberative Session (Feb 5) will likely mean tax increases for all four towns in the district.
Here are my estimated numbers:
The budget approved on Dec. 23 by the Timberlane Budget Committee will almost certainly result in a tax increase. The amount of the increase depends mainly on how much unspent money from the current year is passed forward as revenue to the next year. The district provided the 2015/16 revenue forecast for the first time on Dec. 12. It included a surplus of $1.9 million. This should be taken as highly preliminary because it does not include paying for a sprinkler system and playground expansion to Sandown North in the current budget year. These two projects were removed from the 2015/16 budget by Budcom on Dec. 23, but the administration said they would likely be done and paid for from the current year surplus.
Lower surplus means higher taxes. My estimates are based on a range of possible surplus figures.
Residents hoping that the default budget will provide relief will be disappointed. The default is higher than the BudCom-recommended budget, and could (pessimistically) lead to higher tax increases than experienced under the current default budget this year.
I presented a motion at BudCom for a responsible budget – responsible for families, responsible for quality education, and responsible for the long-term fiscal soundness of the Timberlane district. The Responsible Budget would result in a modest tax decrease for all four towns (although under the most pessimistic forecast of surplus, Danville’s decrease would disappear).
The Responsible Budget
- Includes a staffing reduction of 39, just half the staffing reduction justified by comparison with similar high-achieving districts, leaving Timberlane with abundant resources
- Allows a staffing level which could, if the school board chooses, keep Sandown Central open while a proper closure process is followed
- Protects all staffing for Special Education teachers and aides, and Kindergarten teachers and aides.
- Continues to provide a staffing level far exceeding similar districts delivering more with less.
- Over $1, 250,000 higher than the district operated on for the 2013/2014 year just ended.
- Represents a cut of just $500,000 from what the district is tracking to run on this year (assuming a $1.9 million surplus).
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ACHIEVE THIS RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IS TO VOTE FOR IT AT DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ON FEB. 5TH. 7 PM, Timberlane Regional High School.
Note on tax rates: My % change estimates on property tax impact are done by calculating how much money the towns are required to recover from the property tax payers, compared to the previous year. This is the most unambiguous way of discussing property tax impacts, because it avoids the “noise” created by unrelated moves in property valuations, either individual or townwide. For example, in 2013 Sandown had a major drop in valuations averaging about 20%. Individuals receiving their valuation notices assumed that they would see a decrease in property tax burden, but because the drop applied generally across all properties, the decreased valuations were offset by higher rates per thousand. My focus on the dollar amount to be gathered rather than fluctuating valuations creates a clearer comparison from year to year.
My numbers are based on the percentage increase in the overall amount of money each town must provide the district. My numbers do not forecast the percentage change in the tax rate per thousand dollars of property value, although if valuations are unchanged, the resulting % change will be the same.
timberlaneandsandown 
And you’re confident in these numbers because your estimates were so accurate in the past???
If we’re similarly fortunate this coming year, we may be successful again in forcing a decrease to the predicted tax rate. The school district was embarrassed into addressing the tax issue because of Arthur Green’s accurate analysis. The increase was less because the LGC return of surplus was added into current year revenue instead of unassigned fund balance. I think you know that, as you voted to do it.
There wasn’t any forcing or being embarrassed. The fact of the matter is you had nothing to do with where the tax rate ended up.
It’s also a fact that you voted against returning $250,680 of the fund retention to the tax payers at the 10/2 School Board meeting.
I’m going to assume you’re not firing on all cylinders at this late hour because otherwise your presentation of history is beyond intellectually dishonest. At that meeting, I motioned to put all $350, 680. into surplus in order to lower tax rates. You introduced the idea of putting $100,000 of that money into the fund retention and thus preventing it from lowering the tax rate. I voted against giving the lesser amount back to taxpayers. The board ultimately decided to return only $250,680 to the taxpayers.
Rewriting history in order to win an argument is not a good example for students.
You know what happens when you assume…
You did make he motion to return all of the $350K. Mr. Bealo made an amendment to keep $100K in the retention fund. You voted against the amendment, that makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense is you then voted against returning the remaining $250K to tax payers. If you knew the total of $350K wasn’t going to happen then you should have tried to get as much as possible back to the tax payers. Instead, you voted against anything that wasn’t your original idea. Instead of working with the board it was “my way or the highway…”
Based on your vote one can only assume you wanted it all to go back or nothing to go back.
It’s all on vimeo at the link below, about 1:44:00.
https://vimeo.com/107954383
Tell me, Mr. Collins, are the number of the SB any more accurate? Approximately 5 years ago I stood up at the TRSD deliberative session to protest the illegal presentation of the budget, given that there had not been a legal BudCom Public hearing. I proposed reducing the proposed $4M increase by $5M, and laid out the case for doing so. Mr. LaSalle, and the SB produced a list of 39 items totalling $9.76M that “would have to be cut to meet my budget proposal” This was a LIE. What Mr. LaSalle did not knnow is that i had a copy of the budget I had picked up that day from his office, and as he ran down his list, I checked off the amounts and totalled. them. When he finished i asked him why he would have to cut $9.76M to meet an actual budgetary cut of only $1M? He had no answer.
My point in relating this to you is to point out the mendacity of the SB, the Super, and the Previous BudCom under Ms. O’Neill’s for want of an accurate term, leadership. This is not to paint the current management as dishonest, however there is a long documented history across many people of this practice.
The FACTS are that the budget keeps increasing as enrollment keeps falling. The taxpayers are being squeezed, and are receiving a declining product for an ever increasing investment. This trajectory needs to change.
Mark,
I remember that Deliberative session! I also remember admiring your courage to stand up in the way you did. That budget was put forward without a legal vote of the budget committee as it was not voted on by a quorum. (My exertions at that time consisted of writing a letter to the Tri-Town about the illegality.) Now it seems our positions are reversed. Thank you for jumping in on this blog. Your experience is most welcomed.
“And you’re confident in these numbers because your estimates were so accurate in the past???”
At least he’s trying.
Eventually your taxpayers will remember these discussions, and the attitudes so arrogantly against their interests. Hopefully before they’re milked dry.
If only Mr. Collins took that energy and spin and transferred it to actually working towards really improving TRSD education in his role on TRSB.
10/2 TRSB meeting minutes :
Balance Retention (01:43:40)
In March of 2013 the voters approved a plan to retain year-end unassigned general funds in an amount not to exceed 2.5% of the current year’s net assignment. Mr. Stokinger presented anticipated year-end balances for the board’s consideration. Motion: Mrs. Green motioned to authorize taking $350,680 that is currently earmarked for the fund balance retention and transferring it to surplus. Mrs. Delfino seconded.
Motion to amend: Mr. Collins motioned to amend the motion on the floor by retaining $100,000 of the $350,680 and changing the amount to be transferred to surplus to $250,680. Mr. Bealo seconded. After a discussion, the motion to amend the motion passed by a vote of 6-1-0 (Mrs. Green opposed).
With no further discussion the motion as newly amended passed by a vote of 6-1-0 (Mrs. Green opposed).
The minutes are incorrect as the Vimeo clearly shows Mr. Bealo making the amendment at Mr. Collins’ suggestion of the $100k retention. Mr. Bealo often makes motions Mr. Collins doesn’t seem to want to go on the record concerning. It’s a pattern. How happy would Danville be knowing Mr. Collins raised their taxes this year when he could have lowered them even a little bit more?
Jen C,
I do put a lot of energy into improving education at TRSD. We’ve come a long way in the 2+ years Dr. Metzler has been with us.
I also put a lot of effort into making sure the truth is out there when people like the Greens are trying to sabotage the district with lies. It’s uncalled for and inappropriate and someone needs to make sure the truth is known.
Let’s deal in specifics when calling each other liars, shall we?
How about claiming a material change in a warrant article last Feb. was a typo? See my posting of Feb. 3, 2014 “School Board Officials Advance Deception” https://timberlaneandsandown.wordpress.com/2014/02/
Sabotage the district? Am I the one raising taxes so quickly that the whole district is coming apart at the seams and talking of separation?
Donna,
I did write to you that that change was a typo. I honestly thought it was at first glance when you asked about it. I then went on to further investigate and correct my initial assumption. It was a lengthy email and I believe you posted it on your blog. Saying it was a typo was a mistake and I corrected that misstatement.
I’ve posted a comment about your lies regarding the budget process. You have yet to approve that comment and allow others to see it. It points out the lies you have posted regarding the budget process.
Why won’t you approve and post it?
Could you give me the date of the post I haven’t approved? I don’t recall blocking any posts.
Donna, really?
It’s under the blog post about staffing being up in the new budget (which is also a lie).
Here is the post you haven’t approved yet:
Donna,
Dr. Metzler said, in the 4/11/2013 budget committee meeting, that he would work with budget committee members and department heads to dig as deep as needed to answer any question. You proposed replacing department head presentations with committee members, who had become more familiar with each department, presenting on each department’s budget.
You wanted to move away from department heads presenting. No one on the committee was in favor of your proposal, including Cathy Gorman.
Dr. Metzler said he was more than willing to sit with anyone outside of regular meetings of the budget committee to dig deep into the budget and, where appropriate, bring in department heads. Within meetings he has offered and does bring in department heads to present and answer any and all questions.
Those are the facts. Its all on vimeo , about 1:00:00 in at the link below.
PS – I submitted 12/29 at 6:46 am.
I simply missed it.
And you are right that the net effect of closing Sandown Central is a district-wide net loss of 4.5 positions though staffing is up in all buildings as a result. I will make that point more explicit in that post.
No, the new budget is a net decrease of approximately 19.2 FTEs.
12.4 positions and 2 assistant coaches are from vacant positions that were still on the books. 6.8 are from the proposed closing of Sandown Central. That’s a total of 19.2 FTE removed from the books.
I have no idea how you get 4.5… Another lie on top of the previous lie stated in your headline “Staffing up in new budget, Sdn Central out .”
Vacant positions don’t count in the staffing figures which is what your numbers depend on. Are you saying vacant positions are counted in the staffing numbers?
Vacant positions count toward budget numbers. Isn’t that what we are discussing here?
What I am saying is that in the new budget staffing is down 19.2 FTE.
My numbers are dependent on what was discussed at the budget committee meetings.
Are you contending that your statement, “staffing is up with the new budget” is not a lie when it is a fact that 19.2 FTE and 2 assistant coach positions were cut?
Positions were added to the third draft of the budget. Not a lie. A fact.
I must now get on with my day and must say goodbye.
Here is the clarification I just added to the Staffing Up in New Budget posting:
UPDATE 12/29/14: It’s been pointed out that this post needs clarification. Closing Sandown Central resulted in a cut of only 9 positions. In the third draft of the budget, 4.5 positions were added, so the district-wide effect is a net loss of 4.5 positions. Is it worth closing a school for 4.5 positions? This is how Timberlane’s staffing problem just became a lot worse.
Keep up the good work this lady is a nut!
At least I’m a nut with punctuation.
PS – My comment is stating awaiting your approval…
Once again, you’re wrong.
Sandown Central is a total loss of 8.8. 4.4 were put back in by the budget committee.
When you add the remaining 4.4 to the 12.4 you get 16.8 (I missed the addition of the Danville .4 AP, the intervention teacher and the Tech Specialist.
The actual net is 16.8 FTE removed not 4.5 as you state incorrectly.
You are also misrepresenting the closing of SC as if ONLY 4.5 FTE are what’s being saved. Another lie.
You’re really unbelievable….
This response posted by Arthur Green under Donna’s ID (seems that I have to chase this same comment under several topics):
Vacant positions are specifically excluded by NH DOE from the staffing reports submitted by the districts in mid-October.
Mr. Collins wishes to take credit for phantom staff reductions. The actual net reduction per Mr. Collins’a arithmetic is 4.4.
I caught that also, boy anyone with a brain who watches this nutjob can really get a chuckle she is a comedy of errors on TV.
Are we talking about budgets or staffing reports?
I thought we were talking about budgets….no?
The title of Donna’s post is “Staffing up in new budget…” That statement is incorrect and FTEs are down 16.8.
I know facts are pesky things. You really shouldn’t try to change the subject of the matter to something else.