David Rosicke - Sept. 18, 2007 In the news today: CT schools have the option to get in on a $10 Million grant for school security. http://www.nbc30.com/news/14138387/detail.html?dl=mainclick How much do you think needs to be added to the school budget for Bolton to take advantage of this program? A 1% increase? How many people will shoot down the new budget just because of this minor increase which will get us federal funds to keep our students safe? Ugh. When I went to school as a kid, there were no fundraisers for school programs. It was part of it. Now, if we don't have fundraising, the kids don't go on Field Trips, have after-school activites, etc. There was no plan to integrate special needs kids with the general populace - we had Special Ed classes. These rules have changed. Now, to keep the student classes smaller (NCLB), we need more classes. Ergo, more people work at the school district, both as teachers and as support personnel. How many businesses with 60 people, all who have paperwork to file daily, have only one or two Administrative Assistants? Not many that I know of - usually only in MFG jobs do you see this type of arrangement. When I went to school in NYS (Both my parents were teachers), the school district's teachers were so hated the salaries of all teachers were posted in the local paper. Not the administrators. Not the cleaning people. Not the bus drivers. Not only that, during Austerity Budget times (six years in a row), it got so bad that not only did the busing program get separated out (And was approved every year!) the bus drivers started at $19,000 a year while the teachers started out at $12,000 per year - With a Master's Degree REQUIRED. Which brings up another point. How many of these people teaching our students would get paid this amount in any Industry with their degrees? Maybe in a southern state, but certainly not CT. They would be earning more, even factoring in the number of hours worked per year, and they most certainly would not be purchasing their own supplies! Oh, and most likely, they would not be dealing with petulant parents either. Dick Tuthill - July 1, 2007 Thanks to Bruno for his strong commitment to improving communication on the budget, especially in the electronic medium. We look forward to his making that happen. Regarding the size of increases that are sustainable, IMHO maintaining the current level of spending per capita and the tax rate in real terms as an upper limit is what is needed. Since population is growing at approximately 2% and inflation is running at approximately 3%, this is where the magic 5% spending and tax rate increment limits come from in a lot of folks' minds. And I applaud the taxpayers for recognizing this year that spending level is just as important as the tax rate. Both should be held under 5%. Next year the State may not be as generous as they were with the towns this year. Bob Allinson - June 30, 2007 No matter what spin is put on the referendum result, it is fact that less than 20% of the voters voted for acceptance. Does this invalidate the result - Not at all. What it does do is encourage those who are 'spending cutters' to find sufficient support in the future to oppose the 'spenders'. Industry is dealing with similar problems of cost reduction to remain in business. There are many signs of success and 'Lean Management' is a proven technique. It has been said a number of times that the increases are unsustainable. I have been in Bolton for ten years and my taxes have doubled. I do not accept the argument of house value increases during that time. Such increases are 'Paper Money'. The money does not go into the bank for current living expenses. The days of adding a percentage to last years spending should be over. The base spending crisis has to be tackled and questioned. Closing a park, denying police overtime, eliminating a piece of equipment for the fire department is ludicrous as a means of saving. All such savings do, is sustain those who complain of the continued cost of referendums. The savings are not worth the cost. Some of the big ticket items have to be examined instead. We all know what they are. I do not believe that The Forum is widely read. I asked four residents if they read it. Three wanted to know what is was and the fourth knew it existed but did not read it. I would like to see The Forum left open for continuous feedback, and not close the discussion, until the next (too late) moment for the next referendum. To those who do contribute to the discussion - Thank you. Ed DelSignore - June 27, 2007 A short note of acknowledgment and thanks to all who expressed their appreciation for the reports of the BoF meetings after the failed referendums. It was gratifying, to say the least, that so many read the forum, tried to keep informed and voted. In regard to the voter turnout; while it is true that only about 20% of the electors voted yes the nonvoters by, in essence, abstaining, effectively approved the budget since the referendum either passes or fails by a simple majority of those who vote. The people who do vote either way are participating in our Town's business and should be praised. Those who do not vote give up a right that many would love to have and many have sacrificed to ensure. Bob Allinson - June 26, 2007 Total votes cast = 1,319. Total eligible to vote = 3,564. 682 said yes - 19.1% 80.9% said no or did not vote. Interesting. Bruno Simonetti - June 21, 2007 I just wanted to say that the postings during this budget period were very informative and that the contributors had great info to share and had passion about the topic. As First Selectman Elect, this is my unofficial take on communicating the facts and figures. I would like to see the BOF summarize, in layman's terms, a snapshot of the budget. Tables, balance sheets and etc are not needed. When line items are put out there most people read the bottom line. In my travels during the election, townspeople asked for a simple explanation of what monies we got in, what are our expenses are, and what are we spending. Some may want more description on each category however it is a start. When I start my term next week, my board will work on building better communication from all the boards. Thank you for your time and forum to speak. Vinny Sansevero - June 19, 2007 I thank Ed DelSignore for his very clear and informative BOF meeting summaries. Without Ed's summaries the average Bolton voter would have very little insight into what they were voting for or against. I also agree with Dick Tuthill that it should be the responsibility of the BOF to publish a summary of its referendum recommendations on the morning after its meetings. This summary should be placed on the Official Town of Bolton web site to give the voters timely and official information. Dick Tuthill - June 18, 2007 Pardon me, but I think that those of us to whom meetings are an anathema should nonetheless be permitted to have opinions on the budget and to be able publicly express those opinions without being criticized for not going to meetings. At some point, folks are going to realize that the electronic bulletin board, or blog, or whatever, is where the real discussion happens and where the real town meetings occur (although for some reason this year the spending faction has decided to not participate in the debate). Time for concise summaries of the budgets and their changes from referendum to referendum to be posted publicly. It doesn't have to be here, but it needs to be somewhere. In a way that is easy to understand. The BoF doesn't think it gets enough input? Let them frame the possibilities and post them on this board. I guarantee that they will get plenty of feedback. Of course in doing that, they should be prepared to receive input they won't especially like ... as well as some they will. JMHO Ed DelSignore - June 17, 2007 T. Bagley: Most of your questions/comments would have been best raised at any of the BoF meetings. Normally, the BoF budget meetings are held on the Thursday after a referendum has failed and are not advertised as such except as the local newspaper may state. FYI the next meeting will be held next Tuesday after the referendum whether or not the budget is accepted to set a mill rate to enable tax bills to be issued. The increase in school enrollment repeatedly noted by the J. I. is the number of students expected to enroll from Columbia and it is also puzzling to me why the J. I. thinks this is so important. The students from Columbia will enroll under the contact agreed earlier this year and by which Bolton will receive tuition. The BoEd is best qualified to address your questions about its budget. The additional "found" revenues is a fact of life that can and may continue right up to the end of the fiscal year. While some are skeptical about these found revenues it is better to find them and include them in the budget process than not scour the books and have the tax rate even higher by excluding them in the revenue stream. The spending increase issue has been raised but is still not accepted as a determining factor in the budget rejections by some of our elected officials. Bolton will again take 4 referendums and pass a budget with an approximately 5% spending increase. The process has reduced the spending increase by 1.8% (+6.8% to +4.93%) and the tax rate increase by 4.4% (32.399 to 30.97 mills) all relative to the original proposed budget for 2007-2008. The State Legislature most likely will not adopt a budget and thereby not define Bolton's educational support before the BoF sets the Mill rate next Tuesday. Any amount over the $80,000 expected in the budget would be additional "found" revenue, if you will, and would go into the general fund. Changing the time frame for the budget requires changes to the Town Charter and would probably necessitate a change of the Fiscal Year time frame. I doubt that such changes would eliminate finding additional revenues. One major item that would hopefully be clarified if a later schedule could be adopted is the amount of educational support revenues from the State. Bolton also has to comply with State law in this process. The Charter Revision Commission will be discussing the budget process and seeking ways to improve it. The meetings are open to the Public and comments are welcome. Remember to vote on Tuesday, June 19th, T. Bagley - June 15, 2007 Well, Ed, your #4 statement certainly causes concern and the increase in taxes most definitely exceeds the cost of living adjustment I received this year (2.5%). How can I afford to keep living in this town? I'm disappointed that more people did not turn out for the BoF meeting, but I also could note that this meeting was not widely advertised. Maybe "ordinary" people are not privy to the schedule of BoF meetings? On another note, the JI seems to keep harping on the fact that the enrollment in Bolton Schools is expected to rise by 1.66% (904 current students to 919)- why should we support a 4.69% increase in their expenses for an additional 15 students? And, again, we've "found" more revenue! Put the cards on the table and change the timeframe for our budget to enable the BoF and BoEd to consider everything that's available before sending a proposed budget to referendum. As previously noted, we've already spent $24K on failures. Thanks for the opportunity to speak out in this forum! Ed DelSignore - June 15, 2007 The BoF met Thursday evening, June 14th to address changes to the budget for the referendum next Tuesday, June 19th. In Summary, the BoF adopted changes to both the revenue and spend side of the budget with the following results: 1) The proposed Mill rate would be 30.97 A tax rate increase of 1.48%. 2) The budget was reduced from the last referendum another $74,000 ($24,000 from the Town/$50,000 from the BoEd) and now stands at $17,009,707. for next Tuesday's vote. 3) The proposed budget includes additional projected savings of $65,000 in unexpended appropriations from a number of accounts. Details were not available in that the final billings and payments occurred this week but resulted from savings in the State trooper's contract, liability insurance and salary accounts. 4) The noted cuts in spending result in budget increase over last year's budget of $799,259 (4.93%). 5) The increase in the taxable grand list and the continuing efforts of our Town officials to find additional Savings and reduce spending are the driving factors enabling the lower tax rate. 6) The Charter allows the BoF to take action enabling tax bills to be issued whether next Tuesday's referendum passes or fails. If the referendum passes the BoF sets the mill rate according to the approved budget and known revenues. If the referendum fails the BoF is allowed to set the mill Rate at the current rate and then issue supplemental tax bills as required when a budget is finally approved. Of course, the latter scenario will entail additional costs. One observation that must be noted is that only two members of the public (not on one of the boards) were present. The BoEd members were at their own meeting and therefore the BoEd provided minmal input. Remember to vote on Tuesday, June 19th Warren DeMartin - June 14, 2007 This report from the JI could have just about been copied from last year's. When I read the Board of Finance Chairman statement "What exactly are we supposed to read into these votes when people don't come to meetings and simply vote NO on the budget." " More specifically, what are we doing that you don't want us to do?" Suggestions to do: 1) It seems, one would start by looking at the budget history of at lease the past three years. 2) What was the acceptable mil.rate increase? 3) What were the most prominent complaints in the forum? 4) What was the most acceptable distribution of the budget? 5) Realize that specific people that go to budget meetings and go with an agenda. 6) Realize most people see budget structures as honorable people and leave the details to them. What not to do: 1) Don't repeat the same process that has failed three referendums each year for the past three years. Thats more than $24,000 in referendum expense down the drain. 2) Don't alienate the very people you are seeking money from by expressing your frustration & complaints to the media! Give the media your plan in finding the solution to your dilemma. Keith Allsop - June 13, 2007 There is a comment in the Journal Inquirer today that the Board of Finance does not know what to cut because town residents generally do not express their views at town meetings. That's a fair statement, but the multi referendum sequence and shaving the budget down happens every year. Was this year expected to be different? I'd like to see a few dollars given over to making available a voluntary, anonymous and non binding questionnaire at the referendum so that the board(s) will have survey information to guide the budget process. The questionnaire could have both big picture and specific line item questions. A big picture question for example could be if the approx. 63%:37% split of total budget to school and town is about right, too high, too low. What total % spending increase do you support? A line item kind of question could be a rating of multiple items from most to least important such as opening Indian Notch for the summer and how much that costs, versus buying a snow plow truck at what cost, versus buying a new fire truck etc.. The questionnaire could include useful information to help the residents, such as how many house fires we have per year in Bolton, when was the last fire related home fatality, how would a new fire truck improve safety, etc. If the town meeting format isn't working, is it possible to change the process? T. Bagley - June 13, 2007 I also find it disconcerting when, year after year, the Town "finds" more money after the first couple of defeated budgets! It makes me feel uncomfortable that I'm being duped into accepting an initial budget proposal. I understand that it is an arduous process, but Please - put all of the cards on the table the first time - if it takes a little longer to come up with a proposed budget, so be it, but for "unexpected" surplus money to suddenly be "found" to lower the tax increase seems to me to be a little underhanded. I also agree with the comments regarding the spending side - the Senior Citizens on fixed incomes in this town just can't afford the increases! Thanks for this forum and for the insight it provides! David Rosicke - June 13, 2007 After viewing these comments, I'd like to point out: 1) The good educational system is a big reason why people move to this district. The number of students is INCREASING, so cutting personel is counter-productive as a student support mechanism. Moving money from Education (we haven't given our volunteers anything for their years of service there) to fund other services is a great way to make people want to move AWAY from this town. Do you really want 26-30 students per teacher like Manchester has? Oh, and Yes, teachers need raises just like you demand of your private-sector employers. Their energy and food bills are increasing at the same rates as yours are. 2) MY energy costs this year are LESS than last year. I targeted specific consumption areas and dropped my heating bill by about 20% and electric bill by 8%. I spent less than $500 on improvements to do this and I did not switch to burning wood or wood pelets. If you were at the Selectmen's meeting last week, you would have seen what I used. Oh, that's right. Only two other people showed up! 3) Each referendum COSTS money - which will have to be rolled into the budget. Plus, it takes our volunteer's time and energy for something that should be discussed at the Budget Committee Meeting BEFORE it goes to vote. If you don't show up to voice your opinion - what we have here is the result. 4) Next time we (Homeowners and the Town) get hammered with massive heating oil price increases or a bad winter with lots of plowing, you will be VERY happy that that contingency money is there. Otherwise Bolton will have to take a loan out to pay for these items, costing Taxpayers in the long term. 5) How many of you have a budget? Can you really plan for every expense you have during the year? Food costs are going up. Have you re-adjusted your budget, or are you living off of Oatmeal and EasyMAC? If you 'find' extra money, do you then go out and spend it ("Found surpluses should be returned to the taxpayer") or do you put it in the bank for future expenses like unexpected Medical bills (Building is found to be structurally deficient and needs immediate and expensive repairs) or to replace a vehicle that was destroyed in an accident and the insurance only pays you 20% of replacement cost? Be realistic here. 6) Did your house increase in value since the last assessment? Great! Take out a Home Equity loan! Make improvements! OOPS! Your tax bill increased too, and not just from the improvements! So if you want to live in this very nice town, plan for the property values to be greater, and your tax bill to be higher too. I grew up in a small town that was integrated into a larger town's school district. Both my parents taught in that district. I've seen budget battles over the schools and teachers that are a pittance to what is happening here. The schools here are as good as Glastonbury - Look up the CMT scores for yourself! Should we arbitrarily hand over more money to the town? No, but discuss it in person before just saying 'NO" when it comes to vote. In the selectmen's meeting, they had to scrounge up money to pay for these on-going, repeating referendums. Eventually, someone has to pay for this nonsense, either through a program cut (like one of the parks not opening up) or a service cut - Maybe you want to take your garbage to the Landfill yourself like Colchester has to. Bob Allinson - June 13, 2007 The voters of Bolton should not be fooled by the financial 'finding' of surplus monies to justify continued spending increases. Found surpluses should be returned to the taxpayer. Just the same as the gas tax surplus that should be returned. However the State does not show any willingness to return the windfall. They too want it to fund other spending. I hope that more NO votes can be found for the next round (4th) of financial juggling. May we expect that the next proposed changes will be issued at least a few days before the referendum? Reading it at the polling booth is becoming tiresome. Ed DelSignore - June 11, 2007 Thanks to Dick Tuthill for his note. That was also my message to those attending last Thursday's BoF meeting. Now I know of at least four persons in town who will verbalize that financial reality. I'm sure there are others who indicate this conviction at the referendums by voting down the unsustainable budget increases. Dick Tuthill - June 10, 2007 Ahhh ... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Lowering the tax rate by finding more income should not lure us into voting "yes". The tax rate is not the important metric, it is the spending increase that is important. Spending is still too high. Joshua A. Hawks-Ladds - June 8, 2007 As a Selectman, I am not permitted to advocate for or against the budget which will be voted on this Tuesday June 12 (once a referendum is set we may not legally advocate). I report that on Thursday June 7, 2007, after much discussion and input from citizens and members of the Boards of Education and Selectmen, the Board of Finance voted to reduce spending by $120,000 ($40,000 from town spending and $80,000 from education spending). The budget to be voted on this Tuesday June 12 will (unofficially) result in an increase of 2.65% in taxes. Ed DelSignore - June 8, 2007 The BoF met Thursday evening, June 7th to address changes to the budget for the referendum next Tuesday, June 12th. In Summary, the BoF adopted changes to both the revenue and spend side of the budget with the following results: 1) The proposed Mill rate would be 31.33. A tax rate increase of 2.65% 2) The budget was reduced from the last referendum another $120,000 ($40,000 from the Town/$80,000 from the BoEd) and now stands at $17,083,707. for next Tuesday's vote. 3) The proposed budget includes additional projected increases in revenues. Notably a projected $50,000 increase in State Educational support (the issue being debated by the legislature), $22,000 from education tuition, $11,000 from increased investment income, $8,000 from unexpended BoEd funds. 4) The noted cuts in spending result in budget increase over last years budget of $873,259 (5.39%) 5) The increase in the taxable grand list and the continuing efforts of our elected officials to find additional revenues are the driving factors enabling the lower tax rate. Remember to vote on Tuesday, June 12th. Cal - June 5, 2007 I've been reading the forum comments for years now, and I feel it's time to pipe up again: I attended the Board of Finance meeting after the 1st referendum. Much to my surprise I was only one of TWO "civilians" there. Besides 2 civilians and BOF members, everyone else was either on another board or an employee (probably to be "on the spot" to look after their interests). I think there was a reporter from the JI cus I didn't see anything in the Hfd Courant the next day. The first business discussed was of little interest to me, because it either concerned previously approved items or small stuff. When it came to the town budget, some money was moved around to bring the projected mil rate down to 4.8% (greater than the current inflation rate). From what I can see, we are doing our little budget dance too early because the State Senators and Reps can't seem to wrap up their budget first. I get steamed about that since all those GRANTS that towns have gotten dependent upon are "held hostage" til the back room deals are done (even tho there is a projected state surplus). I do resent having to fund the overhead of people whose job it is write/obtain GRANTS whose sole purpose is to GET BACK SOME of our tax dollars we already paid into the state coffers. Our town is a pipsqueak compared to the other towns and cities that elbow up to the TROUGH (I mean General Fund). Unless we can get the budget down to under 2% this year, I see anyone on fixed or slowly increasing income heading for financial suicide. Oil prices are the BIG TAX increase for us civilians. The state GROSS profits tax on the oil companies is a windfall for the politicians because it turns into a "business expense" for all the oil companies which they pass on to us in full (and then some). The way I see it 2% or less should be the goal. We might reach 5 votes this time because the BOF members won't touch "sacred cows". BOF please DON'T fund UNFUNDED mandates. Send an INVOICE of all unfunded mandates and their real costs to our state rep and senator and tell them to FIX it. There are plenty of towns in the country whose property taxes are a small fraction of what we pay with services I consider good enuff for my purposes. Some of these are in "Income tax Free" states. Now if I can just find ABS (A Bigger Sucker) to sell my hacienda to before many of my neighbors get the same idea and screw up property values. Bob Allinson - May 30, 2007 Why is it so difficult to find details of proposed changes to the Budget? The GOP website had an outline a few days prior to referendum # 2. Did it appear anywhere else? The resounding NO vote for a second time almost certainly means a fourth vote will be needed. Also the wording of the budget proposals is misleading. Why are changes called 'approved' when they have yet to go to referendum for approval? My YES vote is available for the total amount of money requested. Move a million from Education to the Town. (Even a half million would be tempting.) Someone last year in the Forum mentioned Zero-Based Budgeting. I would be happy to contribute to the cost of an outside study. Ray Laramie - May 21, 2007 In response to Keith Allsop: the reason there are no openings posted for Bolton is that the BoE has no way of knowing at this time whether they are going to be able to fill those openings. That depends on the budget vote. If staff has to be cut then openings will likely be filled internally. To Tim V: thank you for making my point. No ... we cannot compare a small city (although East Hartford is technically a town) to Bolton. The reasons for the arbitrator's decision are complex, but I think a safe bet is that one of the factors was the salary levels already in place. Also, you make a very good point about inflation. Similarly, inflation affects the ability of the town (both on the governmental side and the educational side) to provide services at a level comparable to last year. Fuel, utilities, and the cost of every consumable, from paper to copier toner to cafeteria offerings to cleaning supplies, all have increased in cost. Unfortunately, there is no way to continue to fund the necessities except to cut out the "frills". Regrettably, at least from my perspective, there are few to none left to cut. They disappeared in previous budget referenda. What constitutes a "frill" versus a necessity in our schools is open to debate. And that's the question after all isn't it? It isn't that we must ask the town and/or the school to do without because we have to ourselves. We ARE the town ... and the school. Even if a family has no children in the schools at this time, most did at one time. Who was sharing the bill then? The rest of the town. So... what are WE willing to do without? Keith Allsop - May 17, 2007 In response to Ray, I looked through www.boltonpublicschools.com and www.ctreap.net and found no teacher job openings in the Bolton schools system. There might be some, but it would help if they are advertised in the two places candidates will look first! I did find openings for Occupational Therapist (0.8) and School Pyschologist (FT) at www.cea.org, but again, no teacher openings. There is an ARC teacher job fair at Middlesex Technical College this Saturday with about 30 districts in attendance, including region 8 (RHAM) and Glastonbury for example, and Bolton is not represented at the job fair. If I were a teacher looking for a job in the Bolton school system, I failed. I know that there are statewide, actually nationwide, shortages in some areas, such as high school physics and mathematics for example. A free market has effective ways to address targeted shortages, and to hold on to its best employees, but that's another topic altogether. Surely there are other metrics than the number of job openings to assess the remuneration level of an employer, but I'm definitely not seeing an acute situation in Bolton as compared to other like districts. With record low nationwide unemployment, good workers are hard to find across the board. Our teachers can look at the pay scales in East Hartford or Greenwich or out of state and move freely. As long as town funding is coming primarily from property taxes, there will be discrepancies. On money alone, Bolton can't compete with almost any town in the south western part of the state. Fully 50% of school districts will be at or below average, always. Looking at the state as a whole, why would we expect Bolton to pay near the top of the scales? How is that going to happen? Possibly by a significant shift in resident demographics or commercial base, and then is it the same Bolton? Given the advanced age of our high school and small size, the town does have some major school decisions to consider and the sooner the town is engaged in that discussion, the better. That a town almost next door to ours couldn't afford a general increase is an indication that arbitration is not necessarily something to be avoided. The larger point is that a vote of 40 people to determine a huge part of the town budget is something the charter committee might want to address. In this town, town meetings are poorly advertised and attended, almost guaranteeing that the proponents will carry the day. It's a little encouraging that the state governor is proposing some fresh ideas for education funding and tax caps, but ultimately I expect the majority incumbents won't rock the boat that got them there and the final result will be business as usual - more spending and taxes, with a few crumbs coming back to the towns. I'd love to be proven wrong but when you live in a state that is consistently #1 in overall tax burden, it's reasonable to expect more of the same that got you to where you are. As far as this years town budget referendum, I was mildly surprised that the first referendum margin of defeat was so large. On the other hand, residents are looking at their electricity bills and the price at the pump and tightening their belts. When their raises are typically in the 3% range or less, and the town is asking for nearly twice that, perhaps the message to our town government is loud and clear? As Dick pointed out, there is a very large increase in the town proper spending this year and if that is recurring expenditures, that's a very large problem. That's one issue I have with the budget process - there is no distinction in recurring and nonrecurring expenses that I can easily tell. A 9% increase in the budget might be more palatable if it is broken down into 6% one time cost for this year only and a 3% addition to next years baseline. I'm not saying that is the situation and it likely isn't, just wondering if it makes more sense to break out the budget that way and let us know what is the % cost that will carry forward to future years. I'm sure I'm not the only person that is wondering about the future impact of sewer costs, commercial development and quality of life impact, new fire trucks, expensive teacher contracts, land purchases, high school decisions etc. and the budget doesn't give me a good window into that. These uncertainties and risk factors increase the number of No voters in my opinion, but it's not my job to sell the budget, so I'll sign off here. Tim V - May 17, 2007 I would first like to respond to Ray Laramie's comment regarding the salaries of Bolton vs. East Hartford. When we compare a produce we compare it to a similar or like item. East Hartford and Bolton are what I would consider comparing a 5 story apartment building to a one family cape home, in fact it is exactly like that in this case. East Hartford is a small City whereas Bolton is one of the smallest towns in the state. East Hartford has multiple times as many people (Individual Tax Payers) than Bolton. East Hartford has 10-1000 times more businesses (commercial Tax Payers) than Bolton's, 3 gas stations, 2 Pizza joints, and a handful of other businesses. The quality of the area itself requires higher pay to compensate for the commute/traffic, size of the student body, type/mind set of students being served. There is no comparison here, you may want to check on a system that equates to Bolton, in terms of community size, types of tax's generators, and quality of life. Secondly, I can't believe no one has talked about inflation as it applies to the individual resident. Personally, my electric bill has increased to double what I was paying last year at this time, I did not get a 100% raise last year, did you? My health insurance has doubled this year too. Gas, Oil, phone bills are all up more than 10 times my annual increase, How about you? And I am sure by the end of this issue our Taxes will increase by 5%-7%, I did not get a 5% or 7% raise last year, did you? This is the only bill I (We) have a little control over. I do not begrudge raises for our teaching staff or the town staff, nor am I blind to Operational cost increases. I recognize the need to maintain pace with todays standards and technologies as well. But there must be careful consideration as to these. I myself keep a wish list: new roof, plasma TV, new driveway, big vacation, kayak, new golf clubs. As I must put off the TV, Big Va-ca, and toys, and spend on the roof that is leaking now, patch to the driveway now, and maybe a small vacation and one new golf club. This is now what we ask the town and school to do. Do you HAVE TO HAVE IT or would you JUST LIKE TO HAVE IT. A final though I have often been reminded by another Bolton resident of the Law of 7's: which means that a 7% for 7 years will result in a total increase of 50% (i.e., A $4,000 Tax bill today will increase to $6,000 in 7 years). Can you continue to afford that? Ray Laramie - May 16, 2007 In reading this year's forum, a statement was made by Mr. Allsop that needs further illumination. Mr. Allsop's comment stated (regarding Bolton's teacher salary scale) "it averages near 4.5% wage increase for each year 2007-2009, at a time when an arbitration panel gave East Hartford teachers a 0% general wage increase for 2007 because the residents can't afford more" I cannot speak to the reason that the arbitrator offered since I have not read the decision, but I can offer more context. All teacher's salary scales in Connecticut have categories for varies levels of academic achievement (Bachelors, Masters, PhD, and often categories in between) as well as "steps", which roughly correspond to years in the profession. The salaries for a few points in the schedule (which are public information) are shown for Bolton and East Hartford. East Hartford: Bolton: As anyone can see, the salary levels at East Hartford are considerably higher than those at Bolton. I do understand the market forces at work here, but "affordability" on the part of the citizens ... I am sure ... was not the only consideration in the arbitrator's decision. In fact, a quick review of salary schedules for ALL districts in Connecticut shows that the step 1 salary levels for BA and MA degrees are higher than East Hartford in only four towns: Greenwich, Weston, Wilton, and Region 9 (Redding and Easton) ... all in Fairfield County. Franklin, in New London County has a higher BA step 1 than East Hartford, but not MA step 1. Starting salaries are not the entire picture here, but do serve as a useful gauge of factors used to attract outstanding teachers. Bolton competes with communities in Hartford and Tolland Counties for competent teachers. By contrast, out of 43 school districts in these two counties, Bolton's starting salary at the BA level ranks 41st, and at the MA level 34th. Considering the results obtained in the recent past, Bolton is getting quite a bargain for its teachers. I understand the feeling that "the BoE budget must be bloated", but that is an uninformed response. Having been closely involved with Bolton Center School from 2001 to 2004 as a long-term substitute and tech support person, and having taught at Glastonbury High School the last three years, I can say unequivocally that in most important areas it is "bare-bones" at best. When teachers had to buy their own ink cartridges to run printers in their rooms, then there isn't any bloat there. EVERY teacher I know spends money out of their own pocket for essential supplies in their classroom. How many of you spend YOUR money for supplies for your employer? (I know that some professions require that one must have one's own tools, but I can't think of any that require the employee to supply consummables.) I do empathize with the view that property taxes take a toll on many people, but education IS the largest expenditure in our town budgets, and the state government seems to find convenient ways of "passing the buck downhill" so THEY can minimize state-level tax increases, forcing individual districts to shoulder the increased cost of doing business.. Nonetheless, property values, and the desirability of living in a community, are directly tied to quality of its schools. Bolton has been cutting essentials (yes...staff) because certain programs are deemed "not essential". It's these so-called non-essentials that enrich the educational experience of all students, and make Bolton such a great place to live. Ed DelSignore - May 12, 2007 In an attempt to better quantify how Bolton's taxes have increased a review of the net property taxes collected was made. The proposed tax collection for 2007-2008 is $12,486,788 an increase of 7.3% over last year. This amount is 13.8% above that collected in 2005-2006 and a whopping 44.5% over the amount for 2004-2005 which included the effects of the revaluation. Note: the amount for taxes collected in the year 2005-2006 in the summary handed out at the budget hearing are really for 2004-2005. At that pace (approximately 11% average increase) in out of pocket tax collections, Bolton will be doubling tax receipts (read as spending) every 6.5 years. It would be worse if the other revenues from grants and the small growth in the taxable grand levy continue to slow or diminish. The deliberations in the state legislature about taxes and town aid are further confusing the picture. Bolton should not rely on help from the legislature. We need to control spending to a level no greater than the rate of CPI growth. In doing so, revenues from additional grants and any real growth from additional real estate building or remodeling would help to moderate or even reduce the tax burden on all taxpayers. Any help from the development of Rt 44 is still too far in the future to contemplate. It may well be advantageous this year to reject the First referendums proposed budget in order to reduce the spending level and gain the time to see what help, even if temporary, Bolton might receive from the state. Now that's a thought I would never have stated before. Ed DelSignore - May 6, 2007 Finally, had a chance to look at the Budget summary available at the Public hearing on April 17 which was attended by an overflow crowd of 24 taxpayers; not counting the BoF. Only four from this crowd were non current officeholders or candidates for town offices. One can readily understand why the proposed budgets sent to the first referendum are rarely changed from that presented at the public hearing. The following are the facts and figures from the budget summary: The Total proposed spending budget for 2007-2008 is $17,313,707 an increase of 6.8% ($1,103,259) from last year. The projected tax rate increase is 6.1% (projected Mill rate is 32.399). Without a doubt the best start in years from a tax rate increase view. The reality is that the net property tax collection increases by 7.3% ; the increase in the taxable grand list (1.1%) partially offsetting the losses in grants and losses in other revenues, etc. The proposed BoEd spending budget is $11,423,921 a 5.7% ($646,431) increase from last year. The BoF reduced the BoEd submitted budget by $30,000. A review of the detailed BoEd budget has not been completed. The proposed Town Proper spending budget is $4,229,459 a 9.48% ($366,105) increase from last year. This is $421,488 less than the spend budget requested by the various Boards and offices and $4600 more than submitted by the BoS. The BoS provided a memo highlighting 93% of the increases resulting from the reopening of Indian Notch Park ( $28,771), Personnel and associated expenses ($89,690), Utilities ($17,790), Professional & Technical budget ($60,142), Insurance ($46,090), and Contracts ($85,373). Refuse, Resident State Trooper and road resurfacing increases account for the Contract increases. The Capital Improvement budget increased to $332,900 from last year's $293,000 resulting from a list of ten items; nine increasing spending and One reducing spending this fiscal year. Debt Service increased slightly (1.7%) to $1,247,427 from last year's $1,226,604. Debt service for Capital projects, fire truck, the Pistriito property and refunding of bonds was mainly offset by reductions in short term debt. The Contingency fund was increased by the BoF to $80,000 from last year's $20,000 and the $50,000 proposed by the BoS. A good bet would be that this budget item is cut if the first referendum fails. Final resolution of how to treat the tuition revenue from Columbia in this budget's revenue and spend streams is still pending and may affect change the numbers above. The State budget deliberations are ongoing and may affect the revenue side of the equation. Historically, promises of additional state aid has been a trap inviting additional spending to be locked in only to see the revenues disappear. Wisely, no additional revenues from these deliberations are included in the budget. Keith Allsop - April 30, 2007 On March 1st this year, the Journal Inquirer reported the town grand list increased by 1.1%. On March 3rd this year, the Journal Inquirer reported on the final proposed education budget of $11,453,921, a 5.98 percent increase over this year's budget. How did this metastasize to an overall 9% spending increase in the proposed town budget? I didn't look into how the 9% is allocated to the various town functions, but using the rule of doubling (time to double is approx. = 70/yearly increase) the town budget will double in approx. 70/9 = 6 years. Ouch! Are all the town residents anticipating their incomes to double in the next 6 years to keep pace? I wasn't paying too much attention to this year's budget, because the information that was reported in the Journal Inquirer looked encouraging - although the questionable strategy of approving new spending at poorly advertised and attended town meetings (fire truck, land, teacher contracts...) was noted, and the new teacher contract is very expensive. If I recall, it averages near 4.5% wage increase for each year 2007-2009, at a time when an arbitration panel gave East Hartford teachers a 0% general wage increase for 2007 because the residents can't afford more. Is it good government when only 40 people approve town spending that makes up a large part of the town budget? A 9% spending increase is way too high. Richard S. Tuthill - April 28, 2007 I noted with interest that while the budget sent to referendum this year has a seemingly modest 5.6% tax rate increase, the spending increase is a whopping 9%. This is another perfect example of how we, as a town, can ratchet up the tax rate without even intending to. Suppose we approve this budget. What do you want to bet? Next year, what we are going to hear is that State funding support is going to decline for whatever reason ... as it is wont to do in capricious nature. But we will have already locked ourselves into the higher level of spending the previous year (2007). And we all know that once spending goes up, it never comes down. Thus, with much wringing of hands and wailing to the heavens, we will be beseeched to approve a tax increase of something like 8% or 9% because a large part of our costs and revenues are outside our control. We should not fall into that trap. Defeat this budget. Keep the spending increase below 5%. Bob Allinson - April 27, 2007 Where is the outrage on yet another outrageous increase in the Education Budget? Where is the will to cut costs - yes - by cutting the staff. Get to the core of the problem.
| Home | Directories | Calendar | Government | Civic Groups | Recreation | Created and Maintained by: Eileen G. Stanley | ||||
