Minutes of the

2007 Litchfield Public Hearing

On the School District Budget

Held on 16 January 2007

The following school representatives joined the Budget Committee for the school budget hearing:  S Martin (Administrator), C Hamblett (Superintendent), R Boehm (School   Board), D Beauregard (School Board), C Couture (School Board), P Jewett (Board of Selectmen)

Budget Committee members present: B Lemire, B Spencer, D Miller, B McCue, J Harte, M Falzone, A Raccio, and J Caynon

Mr. Lemire opened the hearing for the school budget at 7:12 p.m., and introduced members of the Budget Committee.  He then handed over to Mrs. Cindy Couture who introduced the School Board and school administrative staff.

Mr. Lemire resumed the presentation by explaining the process the Budget Committee had gone through to reach their final recommendation on both the school and municipal budgets.  He explained that the goal of the Budget Committee was to find a balance to meet the needs of the town whilst limiting the impact of any tax increases.  He stated that the Committee had attempted to present a lean fiscal recommendation, reminding the voters that property tax is the only means of taxation.  He stated that the budget amounted to $3,877,483 which was a 1.3% increase over 2006 and thanked everyone for their diligence in presenting a realistic request.

Mr. Lemire pointed out that an article in a newspaper had reported a 63% increase over 2006, but that the figure reported had included the collective bargaining agreement which the voters had voted on and agreed to last year.  He explained that the amount that would be required by taxes was lower this year.  He thanked the administrators for their efforts in presenting budgets which address the needs of the District.  He then introduced Mr. Martin to present the School budget. 

Mr. Martin presented the figures for the school budget as outlined in the attached copy of his presentation and stating that a copy of the presentation would be available on the school district web site for everyone to access.  He highlighted the following:

• The School Board proposed budget figure of $19,254,460 was an increase of 8.3% over 2006/2007
• The Budget Committee’s proposed budget figure of $19,008,548 represents an increase of 6.9% over 2006/2007
• In the Operating budget for 2007/2008 Food Services and Federal funds had no impact on the tax rate as these are offset against revenue
• The variance between the School Board and the Budget Committee proposed budgets equaled $245,912
• Major factors impacting the School Board’s budget, and representing 89% of the increase, is salaries and benefits – Mr. Martin referred to contracts and what is required by law

 

Mr. Martin went on to provide a breakdown of the budget figures by functional account, showing the percentage change and the variance between the proposed School Board figures and the Budget Committees’ highlighting the following:

• An increase in Special Education of 0.9%
• Transportation costs are down due to the District keeping more of the special education students ‘in district’.
• The largest area of increase is in the Facilities Acquisitions & Construction account (4000 series) due to the track at CHS needing an additional layer
• Self Funded Programs have a zero impact as these are offset by revenues

Mr. Martin went on to explain how the Budget Committee had arrived at their recommended bottom line figure:

• They added 3% salary increase for non scheduled employees
• They supported additional full time teaching positions at CHS - new part-time Technology teacher, and expansion of  Music teacher from part-time to full-time
• They supported additional hours for the CHS receptionist (due to the volume of visitors); and expanded days for the LMS Administrative Assistant; as well as expansion of the LMS Custodian from part-time to full-time
• New library books for CHS
• A new wireless computer lab for GMS
• Parking lot repair at GMS
• Legal fees
• Architectural fees
• A pick-up truck for school district use.

Mr. Martin then went over the warrant articles for the school district, stating what the reasons were behind each one, and whether they were supported by the School Board and the Budget Committee.  He then demonstrated the impact of the budget on the property tax, pointing out that if voters accepted everything it would still be a reduction of $221,760 over last year.  He then handed back to Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire invited public input and recognized Mr. Spencer who made the point that the Budget Committee had spent many hours with the school administration to gain an understanding of what they wanted.  He explained the Committee had then voted on several line items before voting on a bottom line figure.  He stated that the Budget Committee had put in a lot of work to arrive at the final figure they recommended.

Mr. Lemire asked for further questions or comments and seeing none he closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m., declaring a ten minute recess before continuing with the hearing for the town budget.

Minutes of the

 2007 Litchfield Public Hearing

On the Town Budget

Held on 16 January 2007

Present: B. Lemire, B. Spencer, J. Caynon, B. McCue, D. Miller, M. Falzone, J. Harte, A. Raccio were joined by Board of Selectmen representatives: P Jewett, C Williams (chair)

Mr. Lemire opened the town budget hearing at 7:45p.m., and began by inviting Board of Selectmen Chairman, Mr. Williams to introduce the Board of Selectmen members in attendance.   Mr. Williams pointed out that Selectman Peeples and Selectman Pinciaro were not in attendance. 

Mr. Lemire showed a slide of departments/accounts (attached) and went through each account, pointing out variances and the reasons for these.  He offered to take any questions at the end and highlighted the following:

• Most increases were driven by 3% salary increases; utility and fuel costs; and increases in demand for services
• Town Clerk - difference due to salary increase differences between Board of Selectmen and Budget Committee

Mr. Spencer asked from the floor why there was no money in the town Operating budget or in the warrant articles for the Highways & Streets account as there is an extensive need to repair roads and culverts.  He stated that he had raised this question at the last Budget Committee meeting.

Mr. Williams responded that work does need to be done, but that the Board of Selectmen was waiting for information they had requested from Mr. de Costa, departmental head for the Highway Department.  He stated that they should have the information by the Deliberative session when they would amend the Operating budget.

Mr. Raccio rose to address the meeting.  He reiterated the statement that the Budget Committee serves a fine function for the town.  He thanked the department heads for the outstanding job they had done in presenting lean and well thought out numbers.  He also recommended that the Budget Committee recommendations be adhered to.  He referred to a cut in the Code Enforcement account recommended by the Budget Committee which had been worked out without a need for a decrease in town services thanks to Chief Schofield’s ability to procure radios early and for a good price.  He stated that he feels strongly the cuts are put before the townspeople at the Deliberative session to let voters decide what they wish to do and that if the Budget Committee had accepted all of the recommendations made by the Board of Selectmen, the increases would still have been within $60,000 of last year.  He thanked the Budget Committee for allowing him to sit on the Committee and thanked the Board of Selectmen for allowing him to represent them.

Town Warrant Articles (Mr. Lemire read into record)

Mr. Lemire read the warrant articles into record - please see attached copy of warrant articles for specific wording.  The following was highlighted:

• Article 4 (Town Administrator) – not recommended by the Budget Committee as it feels that it comes under the purview of the Board of Selectmen to set a salary and compile a job description
• Article 5 (Police Special Detail) – Mr. Spencer rose to speak from the floor, stating that there had been discussions on this article and article 6 which go hand in hand.  The question had been raised as to what would happen if one passes and the other fails at the ballot box, and Mr. Spencer suggested that wording could be added that in the event that article 6 should fail, the other article would be null and void.

 

Mr. Lemire stated that Ms. Durocher had contacted town counsel regarding these articles and invited her to speak.  Ms. Durocher stated that town counsel had clarified that it was not necessary to change the wording as, if the first warrant passed and the second failed a new fund would be established and next year there could be an article to dissolve the expendable fund which would be a housekeeping function.

• Article 7 (Elderly Exemptions from property tax) – Mr. Lemire explained that the Budget Committee have no position on this article as it is not an appropriation article.
• Article 8 (Mosquito Control District) - Mr. Lemire explained that the Budget Committee have no position on this article as it is not an appropriation article.

 

Mr. Raccio asked to address the meeting regarding this article, stating that it is important to note the article is incomplete as it does not address funds.  He explained that the petitioners had not come before the Board of Selectmen to speak on it.  He stated that the Board of Selectmen felt that it would fail due to lack of funding and did not recommend that it go forward.

There being no further questions or input, Mr. Lemire closed the hearing at 8:17 p.m.

Town of Litchfield

Budget Committee Meeting

Held on 16 January 2007

 

Present: B. Lemire B Spencer, J. Caynon, B. McCue, D. Miller, M Falzone, J Harte, A Raccio
Joined by Board of Selectmen members C Williams and P Jewett

Mr. Lemire informed the members that the MS 27 could be signed and passed it around for signature.  He then opened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.  He asked if there were any school issues to be discussed, and seeing none moved on.

Town issues

Mr. Lemire opened the floor to Budget Committee members for discussion.

Motion: by B Spencer
To re-open the Town Operating budget and re-visit Road Maintenance/Improvement account
Second: J Caynon
Vote: 8-0-0
The motion carried unanimously.

Motion: by B Spencer
To increase account 4321-20-575 from $25,000 by $200,000 to $225,000 for road maintenance /improvement
Second: D Miller (for discussion)

Discussion:
Mr. Spencer stated that he was not sure whether there was any road block grant money, but he felt it important to have money in the account now, rather than wait for the Deliberative session and the Operating budget would then be higher than the Default budget.

Mr. Raccio stated he felt it was inappropriate to make such a suggestion for Board of Selectmen before they have met, and he felt strongly that this was out of order.  He further stated that it was totally improper when they do not know whether there is any block grant money, and three members of the Board of Selectmen have stated the issue is under consideration and will be addressed.  He also stated he felt this was inconsistent with the way the Budget Committee operates, and the Board of Selectmen should discuss first and then the Budget Committee could comment.

Mr. Spencer responded by stating that his suggestion was not inappropriate, but is part of the Budget Committee’s responsibility.  He pointed out that the Committee can vote yes or no.

Mr. Miller expanded on Mr. Spencer’s comments by stating that attendance at the Deliberative session is low, outside of having a major bond issue, and that would mean 20-30 people deciding the fate of everyone in town.

Mr. Lemire stated that it was the first time in his tenure with the Budget Committee that someone had complained about an offer to increase the budget.  He spoke to the Road Plan, stating that the Budget Committee has been asking where that is, and that the town runs the risk of a massive road appropriation to catch up with what they are not doing.  He pointed out that Mr. Spencer’s suggestion would provide a little money to maintain roads.  He stated that at least $200,000 was recommended per year to be put aside, and the town has not done that, and there is no money in this budget for road maintenance.  He pointed out that the intent of the Budget Committee is to ensure that the town has resources to take care of the infrastructure it has i.e. maintenance only not new.

Mr. Raccio responded that as a prior member of the Planning Board he was familiar with the Road Maintenance Plan, however he felt that it was irresponsible to add this amount of money when the department head has no idea what he wants to do with it and he stated that he felt strongly that this was not a good idea. 

Mr. Lemire stated that there is a plan – the Road Maintenance Plan - which can be used to decide what the money should be used for and he asked Mr. Raccio who he was speaking for.

Mr. Raccio responded that he spoke as a representative of the Board of Selectmen, and the Board of Selectmen had stated they would address the shortcomings in their next meeting and propose justifications and actual numbers.

Mr. Spencer suggested that the Board of Selectmen could remove the money if they wished and they felt that it did not belong there.

Mr. Lemire asked for the opinion of the other Board of Selectmen representatives who were present.

Mr. Williams stated he felt the prudent way to go about it is to accept the money into the budget and go back and alter it later.  He stated that he had wanted to have the Road Agent at the hearing tonight to speak to him.  He pointed out that the Road Maintenance Plan is currently out of date but that he was hoping that they could take pieces of it and use them.  He stated he wanted to speak to the Road Agent as soon as possible and vote on it at Monday’s meeting of the Board of Selectmen.  He pointed out that he did not think what Mr. Spencer had proposed was inappropriate and that he has seen this happen before.

Mrs. Jewett stated she would accept the addition of the money to the budget, as something is better than nothing.  She stated she personally was hoping to find out that there would be big projects to be done, such as culverts, and that one culvert and some roads could be done this year.

Mr. Caynon asked how much in block grant fees is available right now and was told there was approximately $347,000 as none had been spent last year due to the Default budget being in place. 

Mr. Spencer pointed out that if the town chose to use some block grant money it would reduce the impact to the taxpayers.

Vote: 7-1-0 (Mr.Raccio opposed the vote).
The motion carried.

Mr. Lemire confirmed the new bottom for the town Operating budget as being $4,077,493.

Mr. Raccio stated he wished to put forward a motion to re-open the Town Clerk’s salary, and
Mr. Spencer explained to him that he could not do so as he had not voted for this budget bottom line.

Motion: by J Caynon
To re-open the Town Clerk’s salary (for discussion)
Second:  none
The motion was defeated.

Motion: by B Spencer
To approve a new bottom line of $4,077,493 for the town Operating budget
Second D Miller
Vote: 7-1-0 (Mr.Raccio opposed the vote)
The motion carried.

Mr. Miller raised the point that the warrant article on the Operating budget would need to change, and asked whether it would be necessary for the Committee to vote on it again.  It was confirmed that the wording would need to change, but that there was no need to vote again.

Ms. Durocher asked whether the Committee wished the Board of Selectmen to bring the article before them for the MS7 on Monday and Mr. Lemire confirmed that they should.  He also stated that the MS7 would be with the Police Dispatcher for signature by Wednesday.

Mr. Miller obtained clarification that only a majority was required for signature of the MS7 as he would be out of town.

There being no other business, Mr. Lemire asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Motion: D Miller
Second: B Spencer
Vote: 8-0-0
The motion carried unanimously and the meeting ended 8:45p.m.