Monday, March 15, 2010

School budget meeting and long-term liabilities

Tonight's budget meeting started with department that usually gets the most interest - education. The discussion covered the usual varied range of topics, but also got into teacher union contract discussions. The proposal to defer some costs to a later date was broached.

Wanting to be on the record, I shared my general philosophy that I don't want to incur additional long-term liabilities. I added that the turf is similar to this teachers' union proposal. I'm just not comfortable with it.

We've already got:

1) Other Postretirement Employment Benefits or OPEB that's estimated to cost about $2million annually or more than $20million over the next ten years;

2) Heart & Hypertension is another few million dollars over the years; and the

3) Pension plan almost certainly will need some big funding... though this won't be measured until June 30 of this year... and we probably won't know those numbers until December.


Anyway, my point is that I don't want to incur any new long-term liabilities. At some point we have to draw the line.

Tim White

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tim, you're holding back: http://myrecordjournal.com/cheshire/article_8f3fcce2-309d-11df-8be2-001cc4c002e0.html

- Close Chapman School
- Eliminating CHS department head positions
- Eliminating hall monitor positions
- Reduce funding for extracurricular activities.
- Reduce stipend positions by 25 percent.

Looks like part of the cat is out of the bag now.

Anonymous said...

What you are doing to the town is a liability. When you gut the school system, what does our town have left to offer? This town is in a state of crisis and you are planning to make it worse.

Tim White said...

I'm not holding back. Those were comments made by others. But yes, they were pretty significant comments by... I think Gerry B?

Tim White said...

10:45... I recognize the significance of the comments. But to suggest that Cheshire is alone is insufficient. Every town is talking about cuts. Wallingford is talking about cutting 40 teachers (and 40 other staff), I think.

Anonymous said...

I don't pay taxes to live in Wallingford, and you should not compare us to them.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that Dr. Florio stated that the 10-15 teaching position eliminations would come from teachers and programs from Grades 1-12 as well as eliminating some electives at CHS? Any idea which electives? Is freshmen football going to be eliminated? I heard this was mentioned tonight. Wish I was there...it sounds like actual business was discussed for a change.

Anonymous said...

"I don't pay taxes to live in Wallingford, and you should not compare us to them."

Right, unlike Cheshire Wallingford doesn't have a bloated education budget, revenue shortfalls and bloated property taxes. They obviously are facing different challenges than us and everything is fine in the land of Oz (Cheshire)

Anonymous said...

Why close Chapman? What is the enrollment? Student/Teacher ratios?

Anonymous said...

Why does the Supt always compare us to other towns? Is that fair? Every town is in tough shape and there is no way out but to cut. Let's get real here. If taxpayers can't pay their taxes where will the money come from? We are in this together and must work together to find a solution.

Anonymous said...

According to RealtyTrac, there are 172 properties (residential) in default, 3 properties at auction and 174 properties bank owned (post foreclosure). As recently as 5 years ago foreclosure auctions were unheard of in Cheshire and there are many more on the way.

Reality is here folks and it's looking you right in the face. If you want to be selfish then please move to another town otherwise help your fellow neighbor.

Tim White said...

I don't pay taxes to live in Wallingford, and you should not compare us to them.

I mustn't have been clear.

Wallingford was intended as an anecdote to help illustrate my point about the bigger picture of a very troubled economy.

Anonymous said...

Industrial and commercial properties should be looked at. They will not help this problem.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how it's ok to compare ourselves to other towns when it comes to per pupil spending but we not supposed to compare ourselves to other towns with budget issues?
Go figure.

Perhaps the TC should consider a surcharge on tax bills for education. ALL of us currently support education in our taxes but since times are really tough and some people think we should just "pay as usual" then perhaps they won't mind kicking in a little extra on their tax bills. It can be a "tempory" thing - when the grand list starts to really grow and business starts booming again, the surcharge could be reduced or eliminated.
If everything is on the table then this idea should be also.
:)

Bill said...

It is a good thing that the Chairman of the BOE at least laid out the future possibilities. Makes no matter whether you agree or disagree with him, what matters is he had the spine to tell it like it is instead of waiting and begging for more money. The problem with the BOE over many of the past years is that too many people that earned their living in education were on the BOE. Like it or not; education is a business and should be run as so. We are entitled to an education by state law, basic reading, writing and "rithmatic as they say and a recess period. We are not entitle to all of the extras that our crybaby society has been to include into the education process.

Read the replies on this blog, there are a few where the concern from the blogger is directed at a specific sport or curriculum. If ,amy of these people in town that claim to be so concerned about our "QUALITY" of education would be honest and stand up and say I have a concern about music or sports because my child is involved that would be fine. But they hide behind the "QUALITY" of education statement. We must face the facts, the public no longer has the financial capability to fund the education monster that was created.

Anonymous said...

There is not the money to fund education.... but there is money for senior tax cuts, there is money for the linear path, there is money for the pool, there is money to buy and maintain open space, there is money to look into fixing a barn on town owned property although there is no proposed use for said barn....the list goes on.
When did education and investing in our future become a luxurey and not a neccessity? How do we explain to our childrn that all these things were more important then giving them a education they deserve? Why don't we all be honest and say we dont want to pay for kids, but we do want our pet cause/project funded.

Anonymous said...

"...When did education and investing in our future become a luxurey and not a neccessity?"

Education is one thing, ridiculous, greedy union contracts negotiated in an unfair stupid binding arbitration format brought to all of us by the fools populating our state legislature over the past 3 or so decades is another thing.

Town budgets are going to be in serious continuous trouble as grand lists begin heading towards reductions while all the local teachers unions whine and complain that their ridiculous annual pay raise requirement is really all about the children and not in large part about greed.

Cut the school budget now. If it means some teachers need to go so be it. If we need to do less with less we need to get used to it. If you want more and better try private k-12.

Anonymous said...

"Why don't we all be honest and say we dont want to pay for kids, but we do want our pet cause/project funded."

March 16, 2010 11:53 PM

That's not what most people are saying or thinking. We don't mind supporting education but when is enough enough? Open space, major expenditures on the pool, or the linear trail are capital budget items and are likely referendum items where voters make the decision. You failed to mention the turf field which, although donations may cover some of it, that 525K grant is your tax dollars. It will also be your tax dollars used in the future to maintain it and replace it at a huge cost to all of us more than likely. Talk about a waste.

If all those that go before the council gave ideas instead of complaints maybe they'd come to a solution everyone could live with.
Or better yet, since you know that concessions from the teachers could help solve a large part of this problem, why aren't you approaching them?

Anonymous said...

Gerry mentioned shared sacrifice would be needed by all parties involved. Taxpayers are making a sacrifice since taxes will go up this year even with a zero percent budget increase. Administrators are making sacrifices and offered to help with TRUE concessions. Dr. Florio made a sacrifice by volunteering for a no raise this year (as well as the last two years). I believe his staff has also agreed to this. Parents of students are also making sacrifices by either paying for activity fees, donating more time and money via PTA/PTO as well as volunteering time in the schools to help with classes and/or activities. The BOE took responsibility this year to cut the budget to help with the financial burden being placed on taxpayers. Whether you like what they did or not they trying to do the right thing for everyone yet still managed to propose a $1.2M increase.

When you look at the shared sacrifices being made the only people at the table that have not made a TRUE concession/shared sacrifice is the teacher's union.

Mind you, Cheshire has always favored the union over the years. When has Cheshire asked ANYTHING from the union before this year? We just gave them 14.4% increase over three years...has Cheshire NOT demonstrated good faith with them?

Now, we're asking for their help after years of helping them. Good faith, it seems, does not apply to the teacher's union.

Sorry, but while some people say it's not about the union it's apparently ALL ABOUT the union right now. They are the only party not willing to make a shared sacrifice.

Perhaps it will take a further cut of the education budget by the Town Council that perhaps results in another 20 eliminated teaching positions before the union wakes up.

Cheshire has had enough of the Fat Cat unions.

P.S. Next budget year will be a heck of a lot worse. What will you do then?

Anonymous said...

Excellent points but somehow I don't think this will be the theme of the EAC's meeting come March 22 at 7:00 at Dodd Middle School.

Anonymous said...

9:14, I take you got the following email too?

----------------------------------
Subject: Please forward: Important Parent Meeting with EAC at Dodd School Mar 22, 7PM

If you are concerned about the recent news stories related to the Town Budget and Education Budget, there will be a meeting with the Education Association of Cheshire at Dodd Middle School in the Cafeteria/Auditorium on March 22 at 7PM. All concerned town residents, parents, grandparents, students, are welcome.

Anonymous said...

Here it comes...the rally cry of the union trying to get the parents all fired up for a big showing at the public budget meeting. If it's not turf, it's the pool, if it's not the pool it's the CPD, if it's not the CPD it's the unions...

I wonder what shoe will drop next?

Anonymous said...

At the counil meeting, there will be citizens who attebd that are truely concerned with the educational system and investing in children. It is not fair to simply ignore what they have to say .... those who do not want further tax money spent on education have every right to come to the meeting. If they can not bother, then shame on them. But that does not mean that those who do come should be ignored or that we have the right to sit in judgemnt of their intentions.
The economic crisis we face is huge... but why is it that we can not work together to solve it? Why is it that we need to take sides and throw accusations and insults at those we do not agree with? If the council had shown any willingness to work together with the teachers, instead of simply blaming them for all of the econmic problems this community faces (when in fact they are not responsible for all of it)there might be more trust between the parties and more of a willingness to work as one to try and solve the problems we face.
But, I guess finger pointing and name calling is just more fun!

Anonymous said...

"Open space, major expenditures on the pool, or the linear trail are capital budget items and are likely referendum items where voters make the decision."
Not true, they are not referendum items if they are built in to the budget and are not capitol budget items. SO, for example, the $400,000 yearly subsidy to the pool is not a referendum, nor are expenditures additional to that that are less then $350,000 per item. Referendums are for single items over $350,000. SO, for example, if we wanted to spend money on certain maintence items on open space (such as Boulder Knoll's barn) it would not require a referendum until which time as the expenditure exceeds $350,000 and that is excluding any grant money we receive (which we have applied for in regards to the barn). The same for the liner path... we use grant money and it is only when the town has put down $350,000 AFTER that grant money that it must come up to refernedum. If it is done piece by piece and each proposed 'project'on the linear path is less then $350,000 no referndum is needed.
Concessions from the teacher? Can you honestly say that the council has created a atmosphere of trust? Remember, once they offer to give up concessions it opens the contract and the town can make ANY changes. Also, what are we offering them in return? The BOE will not even promise them that they will keep their jobs, so what incentive do they have to offer up any concessions? What is to stop the council from accepting their concessions, making other changes (such as to benefits) then cutting positions anyway and telling voters how they cut taxes and got back at those greedy teachers.
Lastly, private school? What about students whose family can not afford that. Too bad for them? Sorry that the American dream doesn't apply to you and you will not be given the opportunity to do better then your parents. And we wonder why American students keep falling further and furether behind other countries. Stop blaming them and take a long hard look in the mirror and at the almighty dollar.

Anonymous said...

4:55 "...Taxpayers are making a sacrifice since taxes will go up this year even with a zero percent budget increase....

More and more locals seem to be saying that taxes go up even with a zero budget increase. This seems crazy. Either taxes go up, stay constant or go down. Clearly whoever began describing what goes on this year with the town budget as taxes increasing even though there was a zero percent budget increase is either not so bright or has less than honorable intentions.

Many believe this type of description is nothing but intentional deception assuming those receiving this message and passing it on are naive at best - - -

Our political class needs to speak of increasing taxes as TAX INCREASES, not zero percent budget increases.

Anonymous said...

"Concessions from the teacher? Can you honestly say that the council has created a atmosphere of trust?

Yes, I can actually say that the TC & BOE has created trust with the teacher's union. Remember, Cheshire has been extremely supportive of our teachers. The proof is that 14.4% raise over 3 years granted in 2008. We opted not to go to arbitration and have always kept an open dialogue with the union. When other towns have fought their unions, gone to arbitration, etc...Cheshire has always taken the high road. We treat our teachers incredibly well and will continue.

Now I ask you this...when was the last that the teacher's union actually helped Cheshire with concessions, true concessions? When did Cheshire ever ask the unions to simply give up 3 furlough days?

"once they offer to give up concessions it opens the contract and the town can make ANY changes."

This is completely and flat out FALSE. If you attended the meeting Tuesday night you will know that Dr. Florio specifically stated nobody wanted to open up the contract for renegotiation. A memorandum of understanding is all that is needed in order to negotiate a single item. Your statement is nothing but flat out propagana meant to scare the union membership.

"Also, what are we offering them in return?

Their jobs... They current pay, increased benefits and agreed upon raises. For most folks with common sense, this is incredibly generous.

"The BOE will not even promise them that they will keep their jobs, so what incentive do they have to offer up any concessions?

Who in this country is offering up job guarantees in the most uncertain of times? How could Cheshire (or any other town) promise job security when we don't know what we're going to be receiving in future revenues? In 2011, it's expected that Cheshire will lose $3M in federal/state education funding. How can Cheshire promise security when there's potentially no money to pay for it? Do you think a town as small as Cheshire can afford a $3m tax hike in 2011?

Is it really unreasonable for Cheshire to ask for 3 unpaid furlough days so that we can keep our curtrent teaching staff, current pay, increased benefits? Why are teachers saying this is reasonable and the union leadership stating otherwise?

Mind you, the education budget proposal is still up $1.3M from this year. 80% of that is to fund contracted salary/benefits increases. Taxpayers are still making sacrifices...why won't the teacher's union help the town that has consistently helped them?

One time Cheshire asks for help...and this is the help we get from the teacher's union?

Anonymous said...

!2:34 I know referendum items are those that are single expenditures of $350,000 or more. I was referring to open space purchases, pool bubble replacement, and linear trail expenditures 350+ The turf is a project forced down our throats by the dems - that's their pet project and they'll try keeping it just under the referendum amount, I am sure.

You say "Concessions from the teacher? Can you honestly say that the council has created a atmosphere of trust? Remember, once they offer to give up concessions it opens the contract and the town can make ANY changes. Also, what are we offering them in return? The BOE will not even promise them that they will keep their jobs, so what incentive do they have to offer up any concessions?"
Know your facts - It was made clear at the Boe meeting 3/16 that concessions would NOT open up the contract. What will they get in return? - a job and not a pink slip! As for a promise to always keep their job - no one in the real world gets a promise like that.
Open your eyes and look around at all the people who are out of work, taking pay CUTS, taking UNPAID furlough days, etc. Look at the towns having the same budget issues - possibly closing their schools, reductions, etc.
All our teachers have offered is a loan - there's no savings. Not much of a "shared sacrafice."
Good luck at your meeting on 3/22 at Dodd - I hope you'll finally realize that a real offer of savings to the boe is in order and that you know you'll be saving your fellow teachers jobs. The 10/11 school year is in your hands now - don't mess it up.

Anonymous said...

Not sure I understand all this. You say that the teacher will get their jobs as incentive for giving up concessions. Yet in next paragraph you say that they should not expect job security and that this is too much to expect. Which is it?
I could swear I saw a boe meeting wherethe chair said that they had met with the union, the union had acted in faith but that he could not make any gurantees that jobs could be saved. so what is the incentive to offer up concessions.

Also, Florio says he will not take anything else but the offered concessions. But doesn't any agreement he makes have to be approved by the BOE and TC. The TC seems to be pretty clear about their feeling on the union. Florio may be trusted but does the union have to worry abouth the TC?

Anonymous said...

Last night's BOE meeting was a non-event. Despite all of the news crews and reporters that showed up anticipating a showdown...it just didn't happen.

4 parents spoke asking not to close Chapman. That's it.

Where were all of the concerned parents? Where were all of the concerned teachers...especially from Chapman? It seems few, if any, cares about closing Chapman.

Anonymous said...

Parents can't come out and support teachers when they will not help the town. Their experiencing hard times themselves, many have had to take pay cuts and make concessions to their employers. Teachers usually come out and cry how the taxpayers and the town "can't hurt the children". This year that will fall on deaf ears because the only ones hurting the children are the teachers themselves. Parents will show up in mass for the council meeting asking that their pet sports not be cut but that will be the only time. Bottom line is, the teachers do not have the support of the town for their lack of understanding and their unwillingness to make concessions (not a loan).

Anonymous said...

While I do find, based on current climate, the teachers raises to be high and believe they should look at concessions, the issue with binding arbatration is misleading. Bidning arb was put in place as a mechanism to protect the public and the students. Teachers, police, fire participate in binding arb to ensure that strikes do not disrupt services. While it is easy to say "fire them all and hire new people" it is not reasonable. If one actually looks at binding arb findings, more often than not the decision leans toward the municipality, not the union. Mr. Schrumm likes to blame binding arb for the towns woes. The arbitrators are chosen by the state. If thier decisions were too "out of line" they would not be chosen the following year and thus suffer themselves financially. The fact is Cheshire is a WEALTHY town. While times are hard now, the Town is still financially sound. It has the ability to pay as a whole. It posts a surplus every year. The town did not post what the surplus was this year when in most year it brags about it to show how financially sound they are. Why? to reflect how bad times are. The town actually has an approximate 1/2 million dollar surplus from last year. (7 million over the past 4) Why would an employee bargaining unit NOT use this information for thier benefit. If someone in the private sector secured a contract worth millions would they not use that information to secure a larger "piece of the pie" for themselves.

Anonymous said...

"the issue with binding arbatration is misleading. Bidning arb was put in place as a mechanism to protect the public and the students. Teachers, police, fire participate in binding arb to ensure that strikes do not disrupt services. While it is easy to say "fire them all and hire new people" it is not reasonable."

You have it just absolutely completely backwards. Binding arbitration is a political evil expedient which was put in place by a bunch of cynical Democrats several decades ago in their ongoing attempts to convert this state from what it was.

They have been highly successful in their efforts. Just look at how the state has grown with this concept. Only about 50 years ago, the early 1960's CT was an industrial power house with lots of high paying manufacturing jobs. Teachers were paid less and had fewer protections against the reality of the market place. Today, teachers can command 15% pay hikes in towns like Cheshire. Towns that some on this blog proclaim to be wealthy, can afford it and need to hike taxes.

The only down side that can be seen is the likes of businesses leaving town at a steady rate. And then there is one of our largest employers, Pratt & Whitney. The Democratic state administration showed them. Our state court ordered management to maintain its business in town until December, or else. And oh, let us not forget Monster Mall 2.0. Mall 1.0 evaporated a few years ago but our local movers and shakers found another mall operator to hook on the local economy. However Mall 2.0 looks like it won't materialize for maybe another decade either - - -

Binding arbitration has not protected the public. It only enriches greedy municipal employee labor unions and causes unionized employees to be beholden to state Democratic candidates. Since its advent here in CT any significant manufacturer providing high paying jobs able to has fled to better places. The regional economy is in the process of being absolutely crippled by ridiculously high property taxes and greatly diminishing public services. Of course there is massive growth in one particular sector in CT, that is local and state government jobs paid for by a greatly shrinking pool of workers in the private sector.

Binding arbitration needs to go while the state economy can still recover, if it is not already too late.