Full Day Kindergarten Starts Fall 2016
In some news I inadvertently left out of the last roundup, the board has put full day Kindergarten into the budget for next year. They presented
these slides at a forum on January 12 (
video). Please encourage parents of incoming Kindergartners to register early, as once Moharimet enrolls 54, subsequent students will attend Mast Way no matter where they live. Registration is at your local elementary school from 9-2:30 March 7 to 11, going to 6 pm March 9. I didn't see them yet, but check the district
website for forms you can fill out ahead of time. Bring proof of residency (utility bill) and a birth certificate for the student.
The district put its usual disingenuous spin on the cost, saying that there was no increased staffing because they're "reassigning" upper grade staff. In other words, people who would have been laid off or had their hours cut, saving the district money, are instead still fully employed. That's great for them, but it's hardly free for the district taxpayers. Since the plan is part of the big operating budget (warrant article 8, raise and appropriate $42.3M) the voters don't get a chance to register their support for full day K directly, which I think is regrettable.
The district saved some money by eliminating noontime bus transportation. Parents that want a half day option can pick up their child at noontime, but there's no guarantee that those students will get their full complement of "specials" (gym, art, music, computer lab, ...).
Three People File to Run for Schoolboard
As expected, current Chairman Tom Newkirk and current member Kenny Rotner both filed to run for another three year term as at-large members of the ORCSD board. There are two seats up this year, and a third person has also filed to run. It's Margaret Redhouse of Lee.
I don't know Ms. Redhouse, but a quick google search reveals she's a long time district resident who's had several children go through the district schools, UNH and onto successful careers. I was terribly sorry to see a
sad pair of obituaries from March 2013, wherein her mother and husband died within several days of each other. She's a niece of local landowner Daniel Harvey. In 2005, she
sued Lee to get her assessment lowered but lost.
I don't recall ever meeting or hearing from Margaret Redhouse at a regular schoolboard meeting. I'm sure we'll get to know her shortly. Maybe she'll even introduce herself at Wednesday's Deliberative session. I wish her good luck in the upcoming race.
Deliberative Session Wednesday
This Wednesday night is the Oyster River Cooperative School District Deliberative Session. As usual, it's 7pm in the ORHS auditorium. It's a real election where hardly anyone shows up, usually between 100 and 120 voters. So you and your majority of 60 can rewrite the budget. Or stop it from being rewritten.
A majority of voters at the Deliberative Session can amend the existing warrant articles (also known as the ballot questions). You must be eligible to vote in one of the three towns to be given a voting card at the DS. Lately there's been same-day registration at the DS. So if you can legally vote in any of the three towns (i.e. you're a US citizen at least 18 who lives in the district) you can show up at the DS, register if needed, and vote. It's best to show ID (and proof of address like a utility bill if you need to register), but you don't have to.
The voters at the DS get to amend each warrant article, but the articles themselves aren't approved or rejected until election day, Tuesday March 8, 2016. Usually we get two or three thousand March voters.
There are arcane and ambiguous rules about what the voters can and cannot change at the Deliberative Session. In practice, the only thing the voters can change is certain of the dollar amounts. Negotiated contracts and the default budget are determined beforehand and cannot be amended at the DS.
Click these insets to see the full ballot. Let's look at the articles one at a time.
Articles 1 and 2 elect the moderator and two school board members. Neither is amendable at the Deliberative Session. As mentioned above, current members Tom Newkirk and Kenny Rotner and newcomer Margaret Redhouse of Lee have filed to run for the board.
Article 3 asks the district to appropriate (authorize the spending of) $1.9M to
build the track and field. It asks the voters to approve a $1.5M bond to partly fund the project, and gather's the remaining money from this year's fund balance, previous fundraising, and existing reserve funds. State law says bond measures require a 60% supermajority to pass. We've tried similar bonds four times previously, and each time the vote exceeded 50% but failed to reach 60%. I'm dubious but hopeful this time around.
I look at this article as a sad ending to what started out as such a hopeful budget season. There were
plans to scrape together the money to build the field by delaying other capital improvements, selling some land the district owns and deploying the proceeds of the LGC/Healthtrust lawsuit. At one point the article was going to ask the voters for a one-time appropriation of a couple of hundred thousand dollars and no bond, so would require only 50% to pass. But then this year's lawsuit "premium holiday" failed to materialize, and then we were given budget guidance that our health care premiums would rise a "guaranteed maximum" of 16.8%. Now they probably won't rise that much, but we budget in accordance with this guaranteed maximum. Thus the bond.
The voters are free to modify the various amounts in the article at Deliberative Session. I haven't heard of anyone with plans to try to amend this or any other warrant article this year.
The "environmentally friendly fill" is a product called
EPDM whose main qualification is that it's as close to the properties of crumb rubber without actually being ground up tires. My initial reaction was skepticism, but the product got the nod from vociferous crumb-rubber opponent Dr. Bob Barth, so it's probably OK.
Article 4 ratifies the ORESPA contract. The board and ORESPA, the custodians and secretaries union,
agreed to a first-year raise of 1.5%, second year 2.25% and third year 2.5%. Negotiated contracts cannot be modified at Deliberative Session.
Article 5 authorizes the district to sell its 25-acre lot on Orchard Drive in Durham. At one point it was hoped this donated property could be used as the site of a new school or another district facility, but a review revealed that the actual parcel was unsuitable for any proposed district use. The article asks the taxpayers to shift up to $500,000 of the proceeds (it probably won't sell for near that much) to the Facilities Development Capital Reserve Fund. Originally the land sale was discussed as a funding source for the field; the Reserve Fund allows the money to be put to the field or other capital use. At Deliberative Session the voters are allowed to amend this by changing the $500,000 amount. If you lowered it below the sale price, the difference would end up as fund balance and returned to the taxpayers.
Article 6 asks the voters to dedicate up to $500,000 of this year's fund balance to the Facilities Development Capital Reserve Fund. The fund balance is the budgeted money that's left unspent at the end of the fiscal year. Traditionally, it's returned to the taxpayers every year, where it goes toward lowering next year's taxes. But in the last few years the board has viewed it more as a piggy bank to spend while they have the chance, rather than give it back. Here they're asking it to go in a fund that will likely pay it toward the field. This article is the sad remnant of the original idea of asking the voters to approve the field with a simple 50% majority. At Deliberative Session the voters can change the $500,000 if they choose.
There's nothing magical about using the fund balance to pay for things. It's a marketing breakthrough. The taxpayers pay for all extra spending.
Article 7 establishes a technology fund for underprivileged students. A nice idea, apparently to be funded with equipment sales not to exceed $2,000. At that limit, it's probably not going to help all that many students that much, but it's a good idea that we can get started. Voters at the Deliberative Session can increase the proposed initial appropriation of $1. I'm not sure if voters can modify the $2,000 in the explanation, or if that explanation has any real force.
Article 8 is the big appropriation, $42.3M to fund schools. At the DS, the voters are free to modify any of the budget numbers (except the default budget, what we nominally get if "NO" wins in March).
Last year the big appropriation was $40.8M, so we're looking at an increase of 3.7%. This isn't really the right way to measure the year on year increase, but it's easy to calculate. The right way is to look at the increases on the MS-26
form:
We can see the operating budget rose from 3.7% like we just calculated. The Special Warrant section is a bit complicated; it includes the appropriation for the field, which didn't pass last year, and probably won't this year either. Last year's field appropriation was $2,037K, this year it's $1,922K. Removing those gives Special Warrant Rec Current Year $200,000, Enusing Year $1,000,000. I think the latter comes from the $500,000 in article 5 and the $500,000 in article 6.
The total appropriation excluding the field went from $41.2M to $43.3M, a 5% increase. The aforementioned million (2.5%) isn't really spent, so in actuality this is a bit lower than it seems. The money is raised, but it's stashed in funds.
The surprising thing is an extra $1.9M in revenue. Only $336K of the revenue is a real increase; it's the amount of additional tuition we get as additional Barrington students come to ORHS in accordance with our contract. The rest of the difference comes from counting transfers from reserve funds as revenue. I think there's something fishy going on -- in estimated revenues for the current year we seem to be counting the field bond that failed to pass, which doesn't seem correct. On the previous page it lists total estimated revenue at $3.885M; how that became $6.171M here is a mystery. We seem to be drawing on reserve funds to mitigate the tax increase, at the same time we're attempting to raise taxes to fill other reserve funds.
Anyway, the bottom line shows a tax impact of $28.8M/$28.3M = 1.8%. Adjusting to remove the field changes this to 26.9/26.3 = 2.3%.
As I stated in my
last post, I had thought that Madbury's interim calculation of a 6% millage increase was the result of its assessments being lowered 3.6%, which would increase its millage 1.6% and it lower its taxes 2.0%. It will, but not till next year -- it turns out older valuations are used to set the tax rates. Madbury's increase, according to business administrator Caswell, was largely the result of an increasing proportion of students from Madbury. The board went back and cut the budget a bit more to reduce that increase.
Useful Things to Know for Deliberative Sessions
Here's your reward for reading this far, and also for procrastinating on reading it long enough for me to add this section.
The articles are taken one at a time. An assigned board member reads the article, then says "I move article X". Other board members second. The assigned member continues the presentation for a few minutes. Then the moderator opens up the floor. At this point, voters lined up at the podium get to propose amendments. They can also ask clarifying questions, and actually get an answer from the board or administration.
Sometimes the voters don't get the idea that they're there to amend the ballot. I suggest if you go up to the podium to make a speech, include either "I propose we amend the article by changing the amount to $XXXX" or "I support/oppose the amendment under consideration." If there's no amendment under consideration and you don't want to propose one, save your speech and let's get on to the next article.
Lots of people feel compelled to speak for or against the article. The deliberative session is a good place to air the debate, but it's better if there's something you don't like about the article that you propose to amend.
If the speeches drag on, you or any voter can move to "call the question." This means ending the debate and voting on the amendment (or if there's no amendment, to vote to put this article on the ballot as is and move on to the next article). If there's a second, the moderator will ask people who are for calling the question to show their cards, and then against, and eyeball it. A 2/3 supermajority is required to call the question. If it's close it can take a long time to count those cards. At that point you should say "I withdraw my motion" because it's going to be quicker and more interesting to let the speeches continue than a tedious count on this 2/3.
I can't see why anyone would care this year, but once an amendment under consideration is about to be voted on, you can request a secret ballot. You need to give the moderator a written request with five signatures of voters. If you request a secret ballot before there's an amendment under consideration, you're going to look silly. If you request one while people are still lined up to speak, the moderator will ask if you're calling the question, and if you say yes we get into all that 2/3 nonsense.
When there's no one left to speak or the question is called, we vote on the amendment, if any. Then we vote to "move the article' which appears to mean putting the article on the ballot and moving to the next question. I'm not sure what happens if there are no more amendments but we vote not to move on. Maybe we just sit for a minute and vote again. Anyway, my recollection is this is the procedure.
By the way, if you wanted to get your own article on the ballot, all it requires is the signature of 25 district voters. I'm not sure when the deadline was, but I know it's too late for this ballot.
