TOWN OF AVON
TOWN COUNCIL, BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF FINANCE
SPECIAL MEETING – BUDGET WORK SESSION
MARCH 17, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Avon Middle School Cafetorium by Chairman Carlson. Town Council members present: Mrs. Samul, Messrs. Pena, Shea and Zacchio.
Board of Finance members present: Chairman Harrison, Mrs. Bratton and Mrs. Durdan, Messrs. Eisenlohr, Gugliotti, Hooper and Speich.
Board of Education members present: Chairman Roell, Mrs. Mayer, Mrs. Shelton and Mrs. Zuras, Messrs. Evans, Lowry, Notestine and Stokesbury.
Chairman Carlson reported the purpose of this meeting is for us to share information, ideas and questions amongst the three boards. This is not a public hearing in the sense that our April meetings are. It is a chance for each of us to examine the budget and explore ways that we can work together.
II. DESIGNATION OF MODERATOR: John Carlson – Mr. Harrison was elected Moderator.
Mr. Harrison reported the Public Hearing will take place in a couple of weeks, at which time the public will have full opportunity to ask questions and make comments. There will be no open comment opportunities tonight. However, you can write down your questions and at the end of the presentation, we will make every effort to get the questions answered. He also reported the purpose of this meeting is primarily for the boards to advise each other about what was driving their budget presentations. It was also suggested that the Town Council Presentation should be done prior to the Board of Education Presentation.
III. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: FY 08/09 Budget
a. Town Council Presentation: John Carlson
Chairman Carlson reported the power point was developed in a way so that we can take a look at what the major drivers of our costs are from year to year. We will look at the items we eliminated when we met as the Town Council, in early February. We will also take a look at what the Town Manager eliminated. We will look at regional cooperative efforts that we have going on with other towns and also programs we are already working on with the Board of Education and the Town Council. The first thing we will look at is our operating budget and what is driving the series of increases, as follows:
FY 08/09: Major budget ‘Drivers’
Town Operating Budget $857,130 (4.90%) Increase
1. Fringe benefits $260,157 5.84%
Chairman Carlson reported there is a very large increase of $260,000. These have gone up substantially because we have had no policy changes, that is, we have not changed what we are administering for health benefits or retiree benefits. We have had a number of early retirements, which have helped us in other areas, but it is driving up some of the fringe benefit cost increases this year. We have had an active program with the Defined Contribution Plan, for new employees, which has been in effect for 11 years. Prior to that time, employees were in the Defined Benefit Plan. At this point we have 42 people who are active in the Defined Benefit Plan. That number goes down each year as people retire. The numbers are in flux on some of these items, especially utilities and that type of thing.
2. Utilities $176,888 19.90%
Chairman Carlson reported the second major driver is the utility cost and we just got a letter from
the Connecticut Water Company on pending increases. We know this is also a major budget cost
driver for the Board of Education also.
3. Wages and Salaries $111,367 1.31%
Chairman Carlson reported we have been able to offset some of the increases so we have only a 1.3 % increase. The town wage increase for employees, on an average, is 3%, some will get more, some will get less, based upon performance. The 1.3% is shown here because we have those early retirees going out, we hire new employees and the whole range level step will help considerably.
4. Public Works Contracted Services/Materials $90,820 32.16%
Chairman Carlson reported the highway program at $23,000 and building & grounds at $45,000 which makes up a large percentage of that $90,000 increase. We have expanded a number of roads
in town.
5. Solid Waste Payments to CRRA $26,000 13.90%
He reported this amount is a considerable increase amount that we have to pay in order to have the
solid waste shipped off site to another town.
6. AVFD Grant $25,875 5.00%
He reported the Avon Volunteer Fire Department, they are a separate entity, so it is technically called a grant to them. Over the past couple of years we have held this line item fairly steady, we have made large capital improvements with our Fire Department as you know, in terms of trucks, safety equipment that is oxygen equipment. We are blessed to have a volunteer fire department. If we ever got into a mode of having a full time fire department, I dare not guess what that number would be.
7. Replacement Police Patrol Vehicles $29,210 67.27%
Chairman Carlson reported it should say that in 2007/2008 budget year we came to the Board of Finance to ask if we could take funds out of our general fund to fund the purchase of a used 2007 Tahoe vehicle. Public Works has done a good job of identifying opportunities for us to purchase used vehicles and used equipment – we did the same with a wood chipper. We were able to purchase the Tahoe. We originally planned to have two vehicles in here next year but we only have one in here now.
Sewer Operating Budget $627,537 (54.11%) Increase
He further reported we have a very large increase going out in terms of the sewer operating budget. This is fully funded by sewer fees from tax payers who are on the sewer program. We had an expansion to the plans a number of years ago. Our obligation this year, which has to be paid to the Town of Simsbury is $550,000. That is 88.00% of budget increase.
Chairman Carlson reported the Town Council reduced the Town Operating Budget $40,000 by making the following changes:
- Integrating our Building and Planning Departments;
- Reduced Full-Time Employees from 112 to 109; and
- Reallocated a portion of the savings ($63,000) to deficit accounts: utilities, snow overtime and CRRA fees.
Chairman Carlson reported secondly, there is still a lot of work going on, on Route 44 that will require us to have Police cruisers stationed on the mountain over the next couple of years. We get reimbursed by the contractors, who won the state bid to work on that. Rather than having brand new vehicles on the mountain, we will fix the old ones to be used instead, which will save us some money on wear and tear on our vehicles. He further reported we accelerated staffing changes and took advantage of retirements to save some money.
Chairman Carlson reported the Town Manager made a number of changes to our budget to try and bring it in line. The reductions made by the Town Manager totaled $770,603. The five largest are as follows:
- Reduced other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund
GASB 43 & 45) Contribution to $0. $227,000
- Deferred One (1) Police Officer 79,150
- Reduced Town Council’s Contingency 60,000
- Reduced One (1) Police Vehicle and Set-Up 25,000
- Reduced 20 (smaller $3,000 +/-) Items totaling 59,650
$450,800
He reported we have an obligation to fund post employment benefits for our retirees. This is done by an outside actuary firm. Each year we fund this obligation. The State has a similar obligation for their retirees – they have chosen bonding. We have not because this year due to the rapidly rising costs on the healthcare side, we have actually gone to zero ($0). We still believe we are meeting all of our responsibilities and the fund is in pretty good shape. It will come back up over the next year. It is not a move that we like to make, but we think it is the right move to get us through this year.
He reported there was a request for an additional Police Officer, which has been deferred. We have instructed the Police Department to be on the lookout for the right person, but at this point, it takes at least nine months to bring somebody on board. There is a chance, it we get into the fourth quarter of next year, and the right person becomes available, we might come back to it.
He reported our contingency has been reduced by $60,000. We think that we are still relatively safe, but we are concerned with overall expenditures. Our surplus is currently weakened.
He reported we reduced one police vehicle and the setup, which saved us $25,000. Also there are about 20 smaller items totaling $59,650 that were cut from the budget. He reported the five largest reductions resulted in a $443,000 cut from requests put forward by various town departments, which includes the Police Department, Fire Department, Library, maintenance, etc.
Mr. Speich questioned if a contingency is the same as a surplus. The Town Manager reported we try to budget one tenth of one percent of the operating budget, with a contingency, but virtually every year that has been reduced. We had $100,000 in there but now it has been reduced to $40,000.
Mr. Speich questioned about the staffing for the Police Department. The Town Manager reported, back in 2003, when the Chief requested one additional officer, for each of the three shifts that we have. We have been successful in being able to add two officers over the last five years. The Chief is still interested in having a third officer. He has been deferring that for two years and now we are deferring it for a third year. The plan is to have a third officer at some point here in the future, if we can get the budget to the point where we can do that.
Chairman Carlson reported the Capital Improvement Project requested by both the Town Council and the Board of Education. We, as the Town Council, are ready to make a recommendation to the Board of Finance regarding which projects to move forward with. The total requested for projects is $5.2 million. We recommended that we fund $2.4 million this year, which includes $255,000 in Sewer Projects funded in Sewer Fund. The projects that we are recommending to be deferred are:
- Avon Middle School Roof Replacement $1,130,750
- Town Clerk’s Vault Expansion $ 810,958
This is a requirement of the State. They come in and audit you. We will try to split the funding over the next two years.
- Police Communications Center Replacement $ 549,560
We felt this could be split as well so we deferred $550,000 of that cost.
- Public Works – we deferred five trucks, a wood chipper and a roller, totaling $312,000
Regarding the wood chipper – a used piece of equipment became available in the last
month, so we have authorized the Director of Public Works to acquire that, at a cost of
$28,000 but it still has to go to the Board of Finance for final approval.
- Roaring Brook School Boiler ($402,360) also has to be replaced but we have recommended that we not move forward with it at this point.
Chairman Carlson reported one of the things that we can do at this meeting is couple a number of these projects together and possibly finance them at a future time. The Town Manager reported the thought was that maybe the projects could be processed within the fiscal year, which might mean a delay in some implementation, but the ones particularly, that are already slipped, we probably would not be starting them until we were sure of the second years funding, which would be next May. It is a viable option and we are trying to reduce the operating budget and it should be taken under consideration. If everybody is in favor of it, we can put together a pro forma plan of how to do this, we want to talk with Dennis Dix, our Financial Advisor, and see how that is going to impact future years debt service, in
terms of increases. That is a factor that should be obviously looked at, we planned our debt service basically not to increase by more than 3% or 4% a year, mainly because it puts pressure on the operating budgets, if we have a very large increase in the debt service, it is difficult to absorb.
Someone questioned who decided on how much the vault should be expanded. The Town Manager reported the increase in the size of the vault is being required by the Secretary of the State’s Office. He further reported, in Connecticut, we maintain all the land records for the community. We also maintain all the Vital Statistics information, marriages, births, deaths; also all the official meeting minutes, copies of town reports, and all the items that are specified in the statutes that have to be retained. They even specify the type of paper that we have to use. The Secretary of the State sends someone out to inspect the vault periodically. In our particular case, they indicated that we have to expand the vault.
Mr. Harrison stated, getting back to the question of possibly logging some of these capital projects, if you could refresh my recollection, I understand now there are certain dollar levels where we are prepared to stay within the operating budget. Another level is done through the CIP Program. Can you tell us what those levels are? The Town Manager reported the only threshold that we have has been adopted as a form of policy, is a $20,000 policy. Items below $20,000 with a life expectancy of five years or less, are supposed to be budgeted in the Capital Outlay codes of the operating budget. Items over $20,000 with a life expectancy anticipated to exceed five years, goes into the Capital Improvement Program. The next threshold has been an informal threshold and has basically been tied
with the $500,000 to $750,000 level. Items above $750,000 we look seriously as to whether we should be starting to bond them or, in some cases, we have broken them down into three year funding phases to handle them. We do not have a large number of items that have occurred either in the $1,000,000 to 1,500,000 range – we have been able to avoid that. Generally, you are talking groups and major long term items. One of the factors that should be taken into consideration in deciding whether you want to pool some of these is obviously the life expectancy of the item as opposed to the life expectancy of the bond issue. If you want to do a group that has a 20 year life expectancy that is fine. But, if you have an improvement that will be obsolete in 5 to 7 years and you are going to put a 15 year bond on it, it might not make sense to do it that way.
Mr. Pena questioned if we were to go forward with this idea, would it be appropriate to take another look at those levels to see if there should be an adjustment there? Would that be part of the whole process? The Town Manager reported I think the development of a strategy that you wish to use should be formalized, all with the understanding if inflation takes place, there should be some flexibility.
Mr. Harrison questioned if we should set up a study group to see if adjustments need to be made. Mr. Hooper reported we can take a look at it but I am not a big fan of it, mainly because, things over $100,000 - there is also a $25,000,000 budget.
Mr. Zacchio stated it is like home finances, every time you need to do something, you want to take out another mortgage. That is what we are doing – we are going to be mortgaging the future and the kid’s future and the future of the residents. I think a formal policy is important and a real close study of it is important – I am in favor of the idea – it is certainly worth looking at. I want less debt - a healthy amount of debt we can carry, there is an unhealthy amount. As we go further down the line, if there is something in place that makes this an easy trigger, it will be too easy for boards in the future to mortgage things – I do not want to do that.
Chairman Carlson reported speaking for myself, not the Town Council, I totally agree with Mr. Zacchio. He reported these projects just do not go away, they come back as a large dollar item, due to inflation. Our way of financing in the past has been to spread it over a period of two to three years. Now you are financing over 15 years. The other difference is the past you were not paying interest on it—you were putting the money into a reserve fund. If you bond these projects, you are probably putting off bonding on some other unknown projects, whether it is a building or building expansion. There has to be some sort of policy-ten $50,000 dollar projects all of a sudden equal a half million dollar project when you go to bond that.
Mr. Gugliotti this is a good point for people to focus on, how difficult it is to put together a budget in this town or any town in today’s environment. These are things that no one perceives the fact that we need to have these things done. A roof that leaks has to be fixed, when something is old it has to be repaired or replaced. It is more and more difficult to pay for these things. We are at the point where decisions are going to be made – I will use the metaphor of a tree – we are going to cut branches off a tree, it makes the tree healthier and look better. When you start cutting limbs of the tree, it looks ugly and you might kill the tree. We need to be careful in deciding which is the branch and which is the limb and in moving the tree, are we killing it. I do not think anyone here thinks there is a knee-jerk reaction to rush out and bond something. But we do have to start thinking about where we are going and we have to take some different approach. He reported we
are all here tonight to talk about how we can deal with these budgets and get more creative. I think it is a great idea to form a committee and look at it.
Mr. Shea reported I really think that realistically no one wants to borrow more money, no one likes debt, and everybody understands how the debt can choke the operating budget. But realistically, these roofs are going for a million dollars or more. There is no way this town can go forward without seriously considering the bonding. It is going to choke the operating budget and push these projects out so far, that it just will not be realistic to even do them in a reasonable fashion. So, no one likes debt, no one wants the debt service to increase, but we have a library coming on, we have a fire house coming on – we are going to have to look at creative bonding of theses various projects. I strongly suggest that we take a look at, not just the amount that we bond, but the type of project
that we bond. They should be identified – roofs should be identified, fire trucks should be identified. These items are the ones that have been well in excess of $500,000. If we do not consider this, we are putting at risk future budgets and putting in peril future goals.
Mrs. Roell stated the patching of leaking roofs at the schools is coming out of surplus because they have to be repaired as opposed to planning it out. The Middle School is a perfect example and we have been patching the leaks at the Roaring Brook for the past several years. Mr. Shea reported it would be in the best interest of this town to do the entire roof, not just half of the roof. Because of the budget pressure it was determined to do just half the roof. I would suggest strongly saving money and having a better product, which would be in the best interest of the town, to do the entire roof.
Board of Finance member, Mrs. Durdan, questioned when you are talking about doing the whole roof or part of the roof where does the dollar amount get shown. Mr. Shea stated I think your real question is, when does the other half have to be addressed? He also stated the natural discussion is, we are going to be dealing with the other half of that roof very soon and your board is going to be sitting in front of this whole community and it is going to be, we can not afford to do the other half. That is the hard part.
Someone stated the older roof is the one that has to be replaced now. The addition has not been done either
Mr. Shea stated these roofs now have 20 to 25 to 30 year guarantees. They will clearly outlast the bond. The roofs we were doing in the past had 15 to 17 year guarantees. This proves that the product is a better investment if we are going to look at increasing debt service.
Chairman Carlson recommended that the Superintendent of Schools and the Town Manager put together an outline of what you heard here, the general proposal that the three boards can look at and you should probably have representatives from the three boards.
Mr. Shea suggested the study group should not be included in this process because it would slow down the professionals. The professionals need to go about their business first, bring it back to the Board of Finance, then put together a study group for a meeting or two. Then these three boards should convene. This is one of those topics that we are all going to need to agree on, or at the very least the large majority.
Mrs. Zuras questioned if the State gave a deadline in expanding the vault. The Town Manager reported to date, they have not given us a deadline but two years ago they did tell us to start putting money in the budget for design work. He reported we have $200,000 in the FY 08/09 budget to start moving ahead with this. They are looking for us to start moving forward with the preparations. If we do not start this process, we will get a letter basically giving us a timeframe. It is not something that can be continually delayed. It seems like we could have an updating schedule going all the time but we do not control this, the State does. We are eventually working toward this but we are not there yet.
Mr. Gugliotti reported his office was doing design work for a low library about 10 years ago and shortly after, they stopped getting books because they went on computer. He questioned if there is a chance that we will get off the papers and books and go to electronics, where we would not need extra space in the vault? The Town Manager reported we have been looking into this for years and the answer is no, the State still requires paper backup. Part of this is because software becomes obsolete and we do not have the proper hardware to update or someone that has a good knowledge of the software that the records were put on.
Mrs. Zuras questioned if there is a ranking of importance between the Roaring Brook Boiler replacement and the Middle School Roof replacement? She also questioned which one the Town Council considered more urgent or are you just planning on doing another two year with Avon Middle School, but starting it next year? Dr. Kisiel reported as far as the boiler at Roaring Brook, we recognize that could go at any time. It is in very bad shape. That is why we are moving ahead with it. Regarding the roof project, we just completed a report for the Board of Education. Based on the amount of rain we had this past season, the roof will need to be replaced. Mrs. Zuras stated since the Roaring Brook School boiler project is on the table and it will be a two year project, does that mean we have to wait
another year before it gets started? Dr. Kisiel stated yes, we are planning for July 2009.
Chairman Carlson reported on the Middle School Roof – what we have in the proposal for this year was $50,000 for the architectural part and that is what has been eliminated. Actually, we were splitting the cost of the roof between two fiscal years, again, planning ahead so the work gets done in July of 2009. What makes the roof and the boiler project different from other projects, is they have to be done in the summer. We can not do a full roof project with school in session, according to state law and it is probably the same for the boiler.
Mr. Gugliotti reported the High School expansion is going along very well and we are going to have a savings in the end. It is expected to be finished the end of April, at which time we will hopefully know how much of a savings, under the guaranteed maximum price. He reported it might be as much as a million dollars. With that money available, can it be used for other purposes such as the roof on the Middle School? The Town Manager reported no. Essentially this is a bond issue authorized by referendum for a specific purpose and can not be used for other items.
Mr. Shea reported 10 years ago we were talking about trucks, not capital projects. This whole conversation is much larger than that, items in the $750,000 to $1,000,000 range. We are not discussing trucks or equipment that we need, these are items that have to be on a schedule that are going to be in jeopardy and we can not fund because we are looking at these big items. Chairman Carlson reported if a snow plow goes down, we can not plow certain streets. At that point, we will have to take it out of the contingency fund, or come back to the Board of Finance to take it out of our surplus. Mr. Shea stated we have to be very concerned about is, we do not want to sacrifice schedules on vehicles or on equipment in an effort to try to do this in the best interest of the town because in
the end, it will cause more trouble. Chairman Carlson reported we had that a number of years ago when we did not buy Police vehicles for a number of years, in trying to balance the budget. Then, in short period of time, we had to purchase seven vehicles- in 1990.
Mr. Franzi reported our Board of Education Capital Budget originally had scheduled the Middle School Roof in the summer of 2009 but the Town Council pushed it back. Chairman Carlson reported that was based on our recommendation from the Board of Finance.
Chairman Carlson reported there are things the boards are working on already. The bidding of services is not always done together - it is done together if it makes sense, custodial services are done differently. Basically there are savings by doing a lot of these things jointly. We have saved money the past couple of years in the area of maintenance between the town and the Board of Education. We will continue to do that wherever possible.
Chairman Carlson reported the Town Manager and his staff has undertaken a number of Regional Cooperative Programs over the past few years. We are rated 5th in the State based on the number of programs we participate in. We do a Revaluation program with the Town of Canton and share that cost. We also share the costs of joint social and health services. There are many of things like that we have done for a number of years and will continue to do so. See attached Power Point.
Mr. Harrison thanked Chairman Carlson and the Town Manager for the very informative and thorough presentation. He reported this will be quite valuable not just to the Board of Finance but also the Board of Education.
b. Board of Education Presentation: Peggy Roell
Mrs. Roell reported this is our budget after Dr. Kisiel worked on it. Mr. Eagan who was not able to be here this evening, worked on the budget committee along with Mr. Lowry, Mr. Stokesbury and Mr. Notestine. The Budget that was approved by the Board of Education has a 9.88% increase. It is made up of 930 different accounts. It is a large book that is available at the Library, Town Hall and Board of Education office, if anyone wants to go through it. She reported Mr. Notestine is working on a program, where people will be able to see which of the 930 accounts make up the balance and how the numbers have changed from year to year. That will be ready shortly and it will also be on the Board of Education website.
Mrs. Roell reported the Board of Education statutory responsibilities are a little different than the other boards because we are actually governed by State regulations about what we need to do providing education according to what the State wants. She reported enrollment continues to increase, next year we are projecting 88 more students then we had at the start of this year and about 53 more students then we had at the beginning of January.
Mrs. Roell reported some information we received is from the State Department of Education website, comparing Avon with surrounding towns, as to what the student costs are and also the Per Student Cost Comparison of Changes in a Five Year Period. We are the lowest of all the surrounding towns for the 5 Year Per Student Increase and we have the highest percentage of Student Enrollment over that 5 Year period.
Mrs. Roell reported we will also talk about the Major Drivers of our budget, the Superintendent’s Reductions, and Cost Avoidance/Cost Savings measures, in addition to alliances with the town.
Mrs. Roell reported this budget reflects the sentiments of the Board of Education as a restoration and preservation. As the Board of Finance and everyone else knows, it has a shortfall this year – some things we are recovering this year and then preserving what we have, since our goal is to maintain our good school that we are known for. This is why a lot of people did move and are still moving to Avon. We hope this budget accurately reflects the costs that we believe are necessary to run the school system in that manner.
Mrs. Roell reported the major cost drivers are all the secured costs at a $4,000,000 increase. We just negotiated the new Teacher Contract that went before arbitration, the town won two salary increases for two of the three years at 2.2% the first year and 2.4% for the third year – the teachers won the second year so they will be given a 3.1% increase next year. The 2.2% is lower than the 3% average for other towns.
She reported for the administrators, this next year is the third year of their 3-year contract, and three years ago we negotiated a 3.2% increase for that. And then Other Personnel, which includes the secretaries, custodians, Para professionals, substitutes and anything else that is related to the salary accounts.
Mrs. Roell reported as everyone is aware, the new parts of the High School are coming on board. Back before the original referendum, Mr. Franzi put together an estimate of what we thought the incremental costs for one time operating expenses would be. Three years ago that was estimated at $422,000. Now it is estimated at $416,000. A month ago the number was up to a little over $500,000. That number included all the increases in utilities for the High School, not just the portion related to the new area. The figure of $416,000 is pretty close to what was proposed three years ago. She reported there is a number of $170,000 for technology – computers, printers and things for the classrooms, the Library and the new section of the building that is not included in these numbers.
Mrs. Roell reported the Technology for the Current Labs already at the High School to replace the old computers, then the New Lab, New Library, New Classrooms, New Science Labs and the Distance Learning Lab so the students can start taking courses online so there is more variety for students not needing teachers, will enable teachers to teach smaller groups and still be able to offer additional support. The total amount related to the new areas at the high school is $171,313.
Mrs. Bratton questioned how the chart was set up. Dr. Kisiel reported it reflects the new Technology for the school district, which includes the computers, servers, anything that operates through the computer and is essentially supports the computer operation. Currently, access to the internet is very slow because of the need for additional servers. These are the major costs related to setting all these computers up. He reported this is for the whole school system. The items with an asterisk indicate the new sections of the building that require computers. He also reported $150,000 was budgeted for – the other $38,000 was for the two existing labs that we have not budgeted for and replaced in anticipation of the renovations because some had been moved so we held back on the
expenditures in those areas, so that represents the total cost for the high school.
Mrs. Roell reported the New Personnel - Regular education added 8.7 teachers, Special education added 2 teachers and Maintenance added .63 part time person. Also for the High School, because we are adding 60,000 to 65,000 square feet, each custodian is supposed to be able to do about 25,000 square feet of cleaning per night, so 3.07 people are needed. If we did not have the high school expansion, we would not have added and their salaries are included in the $416,000 of the supplemental high school costs.
Mrs. Samul stated the Board of Education has an addition of two Special Ed Teachers but, you indicate on your chart a reduction in the number of students. Dr. Kisiel reported each child needs a minimum of 25 hours per week. He reported the numbers have increase at the 7-8 level and also at the high school level. Because we have a reduction in PreK does not mean that we can reduce staffing. Most of the children in the PreK programs have with them at least one teacher, supported by several helpers.
Mrs. Samul stated if the number of projected PreK is going down by 13, as they are moving up through the system, so you will need some teachers in other locations, is that right? Dr. Kisiel stated, it is true between Thompson Brook School, the Middle School and the High School, but not at PreK. Because we have less students potentially coming in does not mean we have reduced staff. It does not work that way in any elementary classroom.
Mrs. Roell reported the two new Special Ed teachers are for the higher grades, not for the PreK. There are special ed kids from PreK all the way up and Special Ed teachers teach in the school all the way up. In Preschool, kids are only there half a day, every other day. Even though it is coming down by 13 kids, it is only like 6 kids on a particular day and those special ed teachers have a class of 15 kids, it might be going down from 15 to 13.
Dr. Kisiel reported we have a preschool teacher who works with children, we also have another teacher associated there who is trained to work with children with autism. Essentially, the PreK program for three and four year olds, will have a full time teacher, and the fulltime ADA who are Autistic Teacher Specialists who works with the kids all the time. He reported, because of the nature of their disabilities, it is the only kind that assistance will provide to make sure that the teacher works with the paraprofessional with the children in one setting so we are able to maintain with the covered staff, even with 55 to 42. You also need to understand that by law, we have to have in those classrooms normal children, so there are others.
Mrs. Roell reported for the Regular Education Teachers – In Roaring Brook, because the number of children for next year in the First Grade is lower than this year, there is a first grade teacher that will be moved to third grade. We can move the teachers around when the number of children fluctuate.
Mrs. Bratton stated the difference between the New Personnel Maintenance is .63 and the Custodian/maintenance increase of benefits at 3.07 and questioned if those would normally match? If you are increasing maintenance by a certain number, wouldn’t that same number need the increase in benefits? Mrs. Roell reported no, and stated the .63 is a part time maintenance person being hired, unrelated to the high school expansion. She reported the total salary is the two numbers together.
Mrs. Samul questioned if the cost of the building expansion in Avon or is it strictly the cost of education or education and facilities. Dr. Kisiel reported it does not include debt services, it only includes the net cost of education, the addition to the high school and maintenance. Mrs. Samul questioned when we expanded our school, did the cost per student go up because we had to pay more utilities for more square footage. Dr. Kisiel reported, yes.
Mrs. Roell reported if people are interested, they can go to the website for the State Department of Education you can pull off the Town report, which is about 20 pages for each year. This will show you’re the debt service by town.
Mrs. Durdan questioned what the formula is for determining the cost versus need. Dr. Kisiel reported the Operating Budget. We do not worry about the calculations; we use the State Department of Education’s calculation that is on the website. They estimate our cost per pupil and everyone uses the same standard.
Mrs. Roell reported if you take our total budget and divided it by the number of students, it is not exactly the same number, because of the way they extract certain numbers. But it is comparable to other towns on the state website because they are extracting them from the same report. Dr. Kisiel reported this is an apple to apple comparison that the state does.
Mr. Gugliotti reported the State uses the identical criteria for every town here. Whether it is 100% correct with our numbers, if you figure out our cost per student and our operating costs, it maybe off. Dr. Kisiel reported this is an accurate comparative study.
Mrs. Roell reported the utilities for the town has significantly increased and the part related to the new area of the high school is $213,000 – the rest of it with the increase will be $246,000. she reported the Forecasted Expenses for 07/08 is 1.8 million and the Proposed Budget for 08/09 is 1.9 million, which is $100,000 difference.
Mrs. Roell reported the Health Insurance combined program with the town and the school has a projected increase in health care of almost 13% or $450,000. She stated about 1000 people are covered.
She reported transportation is also going up. We are in our fifth year of our contract with DATTCO. Since we negotiated our prior contract, all the costs of gasoline have been absorbed by DATTCO. When we have to negotiate a new contract there will be a significant increase.
Mr. Gugliotti stated this comes up a lot but I will ask it again. Busses are, often times half empty but the State tells us we have to provide seats for everybody that is out there, regardless if the student uses the bus and how can we cut that back? Mrs. Roell reported I do not think you will have many complaints about that. She reported if you check the high school bus runs, they are much more full then they were five years ago. As the elementary school grows, we have not added any buses in the past four or five years. Five years ago the high school busses were pretty much empty – that is not the case now. The only busses that are less full then ideal is Thompson Brook because they have their own bus run because of the separate start time.
Mr. Zacchio questioned, considering now that there are less bus runs, do you get a break in the contract? Mrs. Roell stated no, because it is the same number of busses and the rates have also increase by 20%. Dr. Kisiel reported we can not reduce miles because we have new houses, which increase miles. We have made some additions and modifications in our bus routes to get as efficient as we can and keep the bus runs under 45 minutes. Sometimes that is too long for young children. Mr. Zacchio questioned if this transportation included sports. Mr. Kisiel reported yes.
Chairman Carlson stated this question is for Peggy & Gary – our utility costs are going up at different rates. Have the two of you sat down & looked at how you came up with these projections? Gary stated no. Chairman Carlson requested they do that because these are moving at such rapid rates in the area of 19% and yours are up as well. I want to make sure we are on the same page as to what our assumptions are.
Mrs. Roell reported budget reductions, net actually reflects some increases and some decreases in the various line items. She reported grants and food service are covered by other revenues from other accounts. The Board of Education does not have any revenues- we also have no contingencies in our accounts.
Mrs. Zuras stated Dr. Kisiel has been helping her to understand, but one question was on the cafeteria and the food, whether or not it could be outsourced as many corporations do. She stated she thought he said it was making money and they used the excess funds for capital improvements so that it was a net and is it balancing out to a net zero, why change it? I would like to throw that out again because are those health benefits and retirement benefits, just labor type things that we could, on a long term basis, ease away from. Dr. Kisiel reported for the past seven years food service has been running in the black, including all its costs for salaries, benefits, retirements, etc., all inclusive, it has always run in the black. In that length of time and not going up in price because students
like to eat lunch, they like to use our food service program. We have been able to run in the black. We run enough dollars in the black so if we needed to, we go back to the Town and ask for funding, that will begin when we need to replace equipment, in the kitchens. In that regard it has been a win/win for all of us. To go to outsource when we are running in the black for the last eight years does not make any sense. Mrs. Roell reported the only one that is covered by the retirement plan is the Director – everyone else is part time.
Mrs. Roell reported we need to look at the $4,000,000 under the Major Cost Drivers and review what are the continuing obligations and what are new costs. The continuing obligation is what we need if we are going to keep everything the way it is today. It does not take into account the 80 more students that we are projecting. The only new thing included in here are the new Special Education people for students that are already here and their student placement needs have already been determined for next year, which we are required by Federal Law to provide them services. If everything stays exactly the same, we estimated that we will need $2,932.006 to open the doors for next year. The new costs are $1,074,478 and the total both is $4,006,484
Mr. Speich questioned what the transportation costs are. Mrs. Roell reported the total of the two numbers is $136,558. This is the cost increase between Regular Ed and Special Ed. She also reported another item under Continuing obligations is the AVAC unit for the air conditioning system, which has come before the Board of Finance a couple of times for additional funding. A year ago it was suggested that we put some money in a fund for replacements. There are many air conditioning units that are getting to the end of their life. Mr. Franzi has a detailed list of exactly how old they and how many are over their life expectancy; specifically more than three. Mr. Speich questioned if that fund is held just for a backup so it is going to be on a regular maintenance basis, where
we will do so many every year? Mr. Franzi reported it is not a question of doing something – it is a question of just having the funds available when they break down, to replace them. He reported as we experienced last June at the time of graduation, we had the unit by the gymnasium go down, with graduation impending, the possibility of being inside, the community would have kind of expected that we would have that running, so that is $9,000 that we did not have. When we went to the Board of Finance, they said to include in your operating budget, from now on, contingency dollars for this so that we have it. Mr. Speich questioned is this going to be collective maintenance so you do not have a breakdown? Dr. Kisiel reported the $9,000 was for replacement, not maintenance. He stated the $27,000 is just an estimate of what we think it might be. Mrs. Roell reported if we get to mid June and none of them have broken down,
we can look at what the oldest ones are and replace the three oldest ones.
A person questioned the Special Education - two fulltime at the High School and one at the Middle School. He heard the Special Ed program at the Middle School was being changed in some way. Right now there is one teacher that handles that for a whole variety of needs for the kids. Is that impacting, is that driving this increase of one Personnel, the change in the program? Dr. Kisiel reported the change in the program is not in the Special Education – it is in Regular Education.
Mrs. Roell reported what is included under New Costs in the Budget are the Regular Education Personnel, and the Custodian/Maintenance people we have already talked about. There are also items that are necessary. Without additional teachers, class sizes will go up; without the new custodian, the school will not be as clean – there will be an impact on our operation. Dr. Kisiel reported we have a total of 8.7 fulltime people but most of those are going to the High School. The two Special Education Teachers are in continuing costs. We have an additional 1.5 teachers at Roaring Brook School to cover class size issues.
Mr. Pena questioned if the new custodians were just for the High School. Mrs. Roell reported there is an additional 53,000 square feet at the High School. Mr. Franzi reported there was a 2.7 increase in Custodial Personnel and .63 for Building Maintenance. The Maintenance we have to budget for is a portion for the district and a portion for the High School. It is a 2.7 increase in Custodial Personnel and 1.00 increase in the Maintenance Personnel.
Mrs. Roell reported as mentioned before, Dr. Kisiel gets budget requests from the Principal and from Mr. Franzi for the non restructual areas. We reviewed all of those budgets and came up with about 1 million dollars of reductions that the Principals set aside as being important, being necessary, or because of knowing what our budget restraints are, some of these items got deferred.
Mr. Gugliotti stated I know you have given us these numbers previously – New Technology equipment excludes replacement of $243,000 and questioned if that figure of $243,000 includes the addition to the High School. Dr. Kisiel stated yes. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if we could pay for the equipment out of the extra construction money that we have? Dr. Kisiel reported it is my understanding the money that was approved at referendum did not include technology. Mr. Gugliotti stated we have done that before. The Town Manager reported yes, but there was concern about the bonding of equipment that maybe was going to be obsolete in five or six years and we would be bonding it for 12 to 17 years. The Town Council previously has instructed the Building Committee not to include that because of the bonding
aspects of it. Mr. Gugliotti reported it just seems it would be nickels and dimes in the bond package, nickels and dimes in the debt service, but it might represent a significant part of the increase in this budget.
The Town Manager reported part of the issue was as to whether it was reimbursable under the State Grant Program, which for Thompson Brook for some of the wiring of the server units was reimbursable. He also reported something that may come up is the possibility of leasing some of the computers; not the longer term hardware but a lot of the peripheral things, in terms of the monitors, pc’s and that sort of thing. They are migrating to leasing phases now, like home systems and copiers rather than purchases. Many of the companies have a purchase buy out at the end of the leasing period so they can be held and used. Occasionally, the Board of Education gives us used computers because they are no longer used for instructional purposes. It may be valuable to keep that option open. Mr.
Shea reported his understanding was that the Town Council incorporated that into the Referendum but he is not sure so would need some clarification on that. He stated to his recollection, it was not a part of the Referendum.
Mr. Franzi reported we did some pricing analysis on leasing. If we did a three year lease, the interest rate would be around five percent for three years. Assuming computer equipment lasts for at least three years, that may be a way to spread out the cost, amortize it over three years instead of doing it over one. That was a question we raised – as to whether we would be allowed to do that and we would appreciate your answer on that question.
Someone from the Board of Education questioned what is the impact on multi year leasing on bonding limits for non bonding debt limits – how much room do we have selectively for leasing. I know the town has done it for police cars - we are talking of $200,000. Where do we cap out because it is obviously something new and, in the long run, could help us as we try to deal with the mid-range expenses that have multi-year life.
The Town Manager reported the interpretation about leasing is the sense that in the financial statement it is usually an issue of whether it appears as long term debt presentations or not. The town’s bonding capacity is far beyond what our current debt is. There is plenty of capacity from that standpoint. The issue is that the town has always tried to stay away from leasing because we try to stay away from other debt in terms of the interest part that we might not normally have to carry. You almost have to get into the individual programs you are dealing with on the leasing. Essentially you are going out to bid for financing by physical assets that appears on there. He reported some of the advantages of it are the buy out provisions at the end of the contract so you can actually
get more of the usable life out of it. I would hate to close the door on that as a financing option. Certainly now, most of us do not go out and buy the $30,000 copiers – these are things we do as a rental/purchase.
Mr. Franzi reported some computers are replaced in year four and some in year six but that was taken roughly as what it is. Some of them are a lot older than that and they do not work quite as well as they should. We felt it would be a shame to build the building and have no furniture in it. He reported if we have a computer lab with no computer equipment in it, I think is a waste of money.
Mr. Shea stated the question was simple - If we compare the purchase versus the lease, does anybody know the difference in the cost? Mrs. Roell reported 5% a year. Mr. Franzi stated it works out to around $12,000 to $13,000 over the three year life. The total is about $317,000 for everything, is what we are looking at. We did actually have a proposal to look at, we have it available. He also stated we felt it would be better to lease, but we thought we were not allowed to lease. So the question that our board specifically posed to the Board of Finance is “Can we lease so we can reduce our budget?” Someone stated it is like buying a fire truck over three years. Mr. Franzi stated yes. The problem is also, in terms of this computer program, we can stretch that because
basically we do not leave an economic life when we are done. In effect, you are planning on replacing the stuff, a certain percentage every year. We probably will not replace all of them over three years but, you are going to need a schedule to replace these things because they stop working.
Mr. Shea reported this is a great conversation but I think we need to have a simple performer on whether to study the lease or buy and just have a discussion about a philosophical approach.
Mr. Gugliotti suggested I think, what I heard you say was, and Houston will correct me if I am wrong, is that in some ways there is an advantage economically to leasing, probably in terms of something breaking and maintenance and that sort of thing. But, if I am hearing that there is a financial advantage to leasing, I would suggest doing it because we are trying to find things that will release the budget pressure. Mr. Franzi reported we felt there was a financial advantage for leasing and the quotes we got were before the feds started lowering rates. So five percent is probably going to be high –it will probably be lower.
Someone suggested that the people who are working on the bond now, add this to their workload and find out what it will cost to lease versus what it will cost to purchase. If it makes sense to do so, then remove it from the budget and we will proceed down that path. Someone else said the Board of Finance has already rejected the notion.
The Town Manager reported there is a history behind this. He reported a long time ago the Board of Education used some monies left over from one project, to purchase equipment, but it was not picked up by the Board of Finance until they reviewed the budget. The Board of Finance decided this was not the proper procedure and that any extras must first be approved by the Board of Finance. He also reported we could set a policy on a limit so that anything over a particular limit has to have Board of Education, Town Council and Board of Finance approval because we are talking hundreds at the High School and the Board of Education; you are talking hundreds of computers. The idea would be to assess, and the same thing on the town side – we do not have many, but it could reach a dollar value when we
are doing something. You would want to have it approved by the various boards. The references in the Charter are referring to debt. By studying that as part of the debt policy it would tend to iron things out and provide the possibility for all the boards to deal with the issues.
Someone questioned if the auditors have any definitions or levels as to when a debt is no longer a debt? The Town Manager reported not as far as levels, but they do have what is and what is not a debt. That same person questioned if that is something we have to run by the auditors? The Town Manager said yes, we get their input along with their recommendations.
Someone asked can anything we are talking about here affect this years Proposed Budget? The Town Manager reported yes. That same person asked if the Town Manager would have something to present to us our next meeting. The Town Manager reported we will try but if not by then, it would be by the next work session.
Mrs. Roell reported Mr. Franzi already provided some information to the board and we can share what he provided to the Board of Education.
Reductions in Prior Years— Mrs. Roell reported we went back over the last three or four years listing positions that have been eliminated within the School District and the different programs that have been eliminated primarily because of budget cuts. If you recall, because we only had one gym, so the kids at the high school got gym for one semester freshman year and one semester sophomore year—that was all the gym classes they could get. We only had two gym teachers because we only had two teaching spaces. In this proposed budget one of the teachers will do a combination of gym/health teacher so that juniors and seniors, if they want to take gym as an elective, they could have that option.
Inter-district Cost Saving Initiatives and Programs—Mrs. Roell reported this is an educational resource collaborative with 10 School Districts. She reported the school districts do a lot of cooperative buying, sharing of ideas and things like that. She also reported one on the great things that happened is the Farmington Valley Diagnostic Center in Avon, which covers eight school districts. This is used for children with special needs, rather then paying for outsourcing them to a private entity for out of district tuition; we have a program area right here. She reported the Capital Regional Education Council includes 29 towns in Hartford County. They meet with the Board of Education representatives on a monthly basis to share ideas and information. They also do cooperative supply
purchases and equipment purchasing.
Cost avoidance/savings measures reflected in the proposed budget- Mrs. Roell reported there have been multiple cost initiatives between the Board of Education and the Town, the Teacher contract, a copier contract resulting in 1 cent per copy; the email reimbursement – we will get reimbursed for some of our telecommunication costs; Energy conservation measures- a question was asked what temperature our buildings are set at. She reported they are always at 68 degrees.
Potential New $ Initiatives- Mrs. Roell reported we already talked about the leasing options which is really deferring paying $300,000 over three years instead of one year, so it is not a savings but it is a deferral. For this year the Board of Education tomorrow night is going to talk about the possibility of instituting a pay to play where the parents would pay for their students to participate in sports.
Mr. Shea reported he wants to state as strongly as possible how opposed he is and how many of the people in the community are to have the students pay to play in athletics. I know it is done in Farmington and Simsbury. It is a great cause for concern in the community. It transcends in to how do you identify the children with a family that can not pay and how do you keep confidential those children? And how would this mute or decrease the enthusiasm to participate? Although you are doing it to get some relief in the budget, I do not think it is in the best interest of the community. I also do not think we will be widely supported. I understand your initiative, I understand the thought process, but I do not think the people in this community would welcome that kind of policy. He also
questioned how will you identify a family of a student who can not afford to pay? If we have a three sport athlete or a two sport athlete and they can not afford play, how does that family go about informing someone that they can not afford it? Who would they go to? Dr. Kisiel reported they would go to the Superintendent or the Principal-we do know the youngsters that have free lunch based on the family’s reported income and we would not charge them for this program. That is the way it is typically done at other schools.
Margaret Bratton wanted the numbers for the student parking fees to be clarified – she thought it was $20,000 but it says $10,000 in the power point. Mr. Franzi reported that was an arbitrary number, the fee can be whatever it wants. The charge to students of $100. a piece or something to that affect, so it could be any number the Board chose to charge. The interesting piece about charging for parking is the fact that the students do not ride saves us the possibility of having to put another bus on.
Mrs. Bratton stated you would have to reserve enough spots for the teachers and potential visitors. How many spots would they need? Dr. Kisiel reported they have reserved about 200 spots.
Mr. Shea reported, I appreciated your support – government is about choices. I just think this is a significant change in the philosophical approach to the base and foundation of what we provide the students with opportunities.
Mr. Stokesbury posed a question for the other two boards, we had listed a few initiatives- do you have other suggestions? Mr. Gugliotti reported I do not get your great big phone book of numbers and immediately spot something that shows an area of overspending. You are doing a great job as far as coming up with the numbers for us. I do not think time enables us to look at that phone book and see if there is a mistake, but maybe we think about engaging the services of an outside professional to do that; some retired business manager from another town who, as a retirement project for a couple thousand dollars (pick a number) would look at the program and come back and make a recommendation. Like “we do not need two English teachers, one teaching Medieval English, the other teaching Elizabethan
English – you ought to combine this (this is hypothetical-I am making this up as an example). I wonder that in this entire budget process, would it be a good idea to have an outside professional come in (a consultant), to look at what we do and make some recommendations about combining things. When you ask for suggestion, I am hard pressed to find them myself – I will look but someone on the outside might. Mr. Stokesbury stated one of the issues with that proposal, which we welcome, is paying for it. We do not think it is easily supported with the Board of Education, to have a special project, pay for it and have a report come back that says, we are doing as well as we think we are. It is a question of where special projects would be funded from, in order to give the appearance that it is objective. Mr. Gugliotti reported I would want to take you off the hook and not have your Board worry about how to do that – it would be
like an audit. Mr. Stokesbury reported we would welcome the audit.
Mr. Gugliotti reported we are all trying to find ideas and it is difficult. We are all lay people, even you people who spend so much time on the Board of Ed – you are lay people and you have excellent professionals advising you, and they do come up with things to cut. Everyone would like someone with another set of eyes, who are able to say maybe we should find something else.
Mr. Stokesbury stated we are all in favor of finding a savings, the waste if you would, to spend on the needs of the school district to avoid “pay to play” and other initiatives that are not well received. We need to find every penny we can for this. Mr. Gugliotti said “I don’t use the word waste.” Mr. Stokesbury reported maybe that suggestion could carry over on the town side as well. Mr. Gugliotti reported no doubt, it would be money spent but perhaps money well spent. Maybe it does not have to get done every year, maybe just every five years.
Mr. Gugliotti reported there may be some advantage; everybody knows we are getting into tougher and tougher in terms of grand list growth. Maybe we can all benefit by having somebody with fresh eyes look at our whole process here in Avon. Somebody may see things, that come back and say you are doing great, somebody may say change your process. That is something we should look into, extend it to the entire budget process.
Mr. Pena questioned, regarding the cleaning of the building, have you looked into the cost estimates? Mr. Stokesbury reported yes, we did this year. In two cases we contracted out, when we were short on custodian help. We contracted out with two different firms. It was a disaster, both in terms of the work and the supervision. If we had concentrated on one building, we would have had a better handle on it. We concentrated on two buildings, we used larger firms and it just did not work. It may work in the future if we use smaller firms. We used the firm that FIP Construction was using, to clean certain parts of the building and no one was satisfied – the teachers were not satisfied, the administration was not satisfied, and it showed very quickly. When our staff
came back on, there was a noticeable difference.
Mr. Pena questioned if we are required to have a nurse at each school? Dr. Kisiel reported we are required to have a nurse staff at each school. He also stated if our schools had smaller enrollments, we could get away with that. But with 600-700, 1000 kids in each school, that is not possible.
Mrs. Durdan reported you would need to have somebody go through this that would be experienced in identifying different things, but one of the items I looked at; there was a section here for flu shots and for physical examinations. Do they not have insurance? Dr. Kisiel reported it is for those individuals who do not have access to get the free flu shots. We offer it as a preventive measure. If they do not get the flu, that reduces our cost for substitutes. We consider it a preventive measure. It is a $1,500 investment, which is a small investment. She also stated maybe it could be reworked by their insurance carrier. Dr. Kisiel reported in some cases they are, in some cases they are not.
Mr. Pena stated he had a question regarding the technology equipment for the Media Room at the High School. Are you going to have a Media program? Dr. Kisiel reported we are going to have a Media Program and that is already figured in the cost. The only thing that is not taken into account is the monitor that maybe will come out of the library budget. He reported the video production, for example, desks that the facility needs, that are not in the budget, the State Education Foundation has awarded the teachers some money to begin that process for a whole variety of video production possibilities including the media.
Mrs. Shelton stated she heard the comment about the concept of having an external set of eyes look at the budget and stated that is a good idea, but we need to understand that on paper, versus in action, two very different things. Often times you can look on paper and say that looks like an adequate amount for some line items. But you do not see it in action. I think we also need to ask for feedback from staff. Coming from the non profit world where most of my experience was, we typically have said, if you have to cut 10% out of your budget somewhere or reduce the areas of waste, what would they be? Those are your experts, the people who are there day to day who see where money goes, what it is spent on, and where you need some changes. Mr. Gugliotti stated if we were to
explore this, and maybe this is the beginning of a long process to get into that. I assume that some bright ideas would come out as to what this consultant would do and look at. I think it would be more then an audit on paper – I can look at the paper and I can not make a lot of it. If we had one teacher teaching three kids Elizabethan English, another teaching three more kids Medieval English, why wouldn’t you combine them and have one teacher teaching six kids a combined program?
Dr. Kisiel reported this is a good suggestion and as we go forward, maybe we can map out a plan. There maybe things the person can do in terms of questioning staff and the idea of getting somebody with no bias, no built in agenda, can come in and give us options – the auditors do not do that. Basically, the auditors look at money in and money out and what happened in between. This would be something different from the audit and we should pursue it.
Mrs. Shelton reported two things - we did use a similar type audit five years ago, we did combine maintenance with something along those lines. This will not be the first time we have followed through and done it. Your comment about asking people who are doing the work, where it would be saved – I have kind of assumed, in any budget that would have already been done, that you would have already gone through that exercise.
Mr. Pena reported it may be too late this year but have we looked at the building use for the summer so we can make sure that, because of the high utility cost, that we are not having people in that building, that should not be there. He reported Parks and Rec, on the town side, they have their camp program at the school – are we looking at that or have we looked at it already? Also, the cost of summer camp- have they taken into consider the fact that $200 per child to attend the summer camp program, have they taken into consider the higher energy bills? Dr. Kisiel reported we do not pass that cost on to the Parks and Recreation. We use the facility during the summer for summer school for special education children and this year we have a summer school program that is going to be in
operation. Essentially, all of our schools will be this summer, partly by Parks & Recreation, partly by us, particularly during that eight week period from the last week of June through the third week of August. Mr. Pena stated he is not suggesting that we transfer money from one department to another, but maybe the cost for camp should be $250 per person to help defray costs.
Mrs. Bratton questioned “Other budget line item reductions of $53,213” but stated it is listed under “Proposed budget increases?” Mrs. Roell reported that number is the total balance from the school. Mrs. Bratton also questioned under Superintendent’s Reductions if the Personnel amount was for non instructional. Dr. Kisiel reported most of them were for instructional – the reduction of teachers, new teacher requests.
Mrs. Bratton reported she had not seen the January or February Board of Finance minutes but there was someone in the audience who was newer to town and wanted to have it clarified as far as Reductions in Prior Years. Each reduction item was due to budget cuts but explain to her that those were increases to a budget proposal request. Mrs. Roell reported these were all for staff that are not staff anymore. Mrs. Bratton said at, but you mentioned the reasoning was that the Board of Finance cut the budget but the budget went up each year, we just clarified to her that it went up by less. Dr. Kisiel reported he can give you an illustration, when Thompson Brook opened up we placed two administrators in that building, we took two district administrators out of the budget in part to cover the costs. In other words to meet the Boards approved budget it had to do, where they had increased staff or whatever, we had to find other sources of revenues to reduce this budget. Mrs. Bratton
stated the new resident thought that the change from the previous years budget to the current year had actually gone down dollar wise. We explained the dollar amount of the budget, due to other things, we had to make some cuts in personnel.
Mrs. Roell reported as you are aware, the Board of Education is currently running in a deficit and sent a letter to the Board of Finance back in October, notifying them of that situation. Taking our current budget and track off the shortfall that we are having this year and the additional costs related to AHS addition and the money taken from other accounts to cover a portion of these items. Other items and equipment are not being purchased this year in order to cover the majority of the deficit. When you take these things out, then deduct the cost of the high school addition, the adjusted operating budget is $2,799,055 which is a 6.9% increase.
Dr. Kisiel was asked is there a deficit in Special Ed this budget year. Is it because we had more special ed children than we anticipated? And yet you are showing a 20% decrease in next year, over this years’ enrollment. He said the decrease is in PreK. She questioned why are you anticipating a decrease in Special Ed this coming year, when you underestimated last year for this year? Dr. Kisiel reported the reason why this Board faces this deficit is because we had three children who lived in this district this summer, one of whom had to have one teacher and one paraprofessional and that was a tag of $75,000 just for that one child moving in. On top of that we had two other children moving in so we had to hire another teacher plus a reading specialist beside a speech pathologist.
These folks moved in this summer– we did not know they were coming- we had a plan we had to fulfill, which required hiring new staff. We do not know what June or January or July or August will bring because that number can change. We have no idea until they arrive. That is what caused us for this coming summer, to face that shuffle. Special Education is a moving target for every school district in this state.
Mrs. Roell reported our budget for Special Ed this current year is about 5.4 million dollars – the projected budget for next year is 6.3 million dollars, an increase of $900,000. Of that, $240,000 happened during this year after the budget was approved.
Mrs. Bratton questioned where do we go when we spend on Special Education - what do we receive back from the state? Mrs. Roell reported it depends on individual student registration. The State will reimburse us for a percentage of per student cost, which is $50,000. They only reimburse us $5,500 to $7,000. Dr. Kisiel reported they will also reimburse us for the costs for a child that is out placed which is assessed at $150,000 per year. They will reimburse us 75% of the difference between $50,000 and $150,000. We do not get all the money back; we only get a portion of it back. Mrs. Bratton questioned so you get 75% of $50,000. Dr. Kisiel stated no, we get 75% of the difference between the $50,000 and the overage.
Mr. Speich regarding the 2007/2008 Budget Shortfall – He questioned if that is the money that is anticipated at the end of this fiscal year that you will be in the arrears. Is that what you are going to be coming to the Board of Finance for? Mrs. Roell reported no, that will be taken from other accounts. Dr. Kisiel reported right now, at the last Board of Education meeting, we had a $185,000 deficit as of last month, so it has changed only slightly to $189,000. That includes a 20% reduction in discretionary costs such as text books, materials - we pulled that money back plus equipment, plus maintenance and anyplace else we can find the difference to get down to the $189,000.
Mr. Speich stated I guess I don’t quite understand this whole $900,000 item. Is this from things you did not spend this year and you are going to be spending them next year, so you will need an additional $900,000 or do you have this budgeted in your 2008/09 budget? Mr. Franzi reported clearly the Special Education costs are absorbed into next years budget because the teachers are still there, the paraprofessionals are still there. That is still in place, unless we have students who move out and reduce those costs for us. Those costs potentially over-we hire a teacher this year and they are in the program, they are going to be there next year. He reported the utilities; this represents a shortfall in terms of where the Board of Education budgeted. The Board budgeted, last year based on
the temperatures in 2005/2006, using that as a baseline to determine what expenses might be for this year. We built in what we expected those costs might be for 2008/2009. Hopefully, the dollars we have budgeted will be sufficient so we do not have such a huge shortfall we saw in utilities. Basing it on 2005/06 was clearly not sufficient.
Mr. Franzi reported in terms of the other issues, some of this, I am not sure how much control we have over any of this at this point. Mostly of our legal services we had encountered was for Special Education because that is where we spent our legal fee money. Salary and substitutes are primarily costs related to some paraprofessionals, some costs related to simply not having enough money in our substitute account to cover teachers who were out. We know where the expenditures are, we know right now and we have had trends over the last five years of what those expenditures are and we know where we are going to be short. We know right now how short we are going to be.
Mr. Gugliotti reported my observation is you intended to show that while your current budget requests show the 9.88% increase- you are saying if we back a few things out, it will be less then 9.88%. For example, if we took out the additional costs for the high school, which is nobody’s fault, you could subtract $415,000 and you are saying I have a 9.88% increase but don’t blame me for $415,000 of it because it is the new building. Some of these other numbers, like Mr. Speich, I do not understand how they figure in, the other numbers are intended to show if you took them out, the adjusted increase would only be 6.9%. So you are saying 9.88% in the budget papers but there are exigent circumstances that would mediate and say well it is 6.9% if you take into account things that you
have no control over, like the new building coming on line. I understand the building, like Mr. Speich, but I do not understand these other numbers.
Mr. Harrison reported if the voter approved budget from last spring was $40,500,000 roughly, and what I think you are saying is, if the variance number is correct, you will come back in, not having spent $40,500,000 but $40,689,000- both Mr. Franzi and Dr. Kisiel said correct. Mr. Harrison also stated, and items like the $415,000 that Mr. Gugliotti just mentioned, that was not necessarily approved so these numbers came upon us during this year that we sort of have to pay next year.
Mr. Speich reported this is where I get lost because it says less: 07/08 shortfall and we are talking about a budget 08/09. If it did not have that 07/08 budget shortfall, but instead you said we know the Special Ed is going to go up and is uncontrollable and utilities are going to go up to $348,508 then it makes more sense to me. But by saying the budget shortfall, it looks like you are covering last year’s budget, in next year’s budget.
Chairman Carlson reported traditionally, we do it on the Town side as well when we compare budget to budget. Usually we are pretty accurate because we don not have any shortfalls. In this situation, we have unanticipated expenses that are obligated, to try and prepare next years budget to this year’s anticipated actual.
Mr. Stokesbury stated we need to look at another component of the Board of Education budget. It is completely off line and it has only been mentioned briefly tonight. The Board benefits from generous contributions from the PTO and the Avon Educational Foundation and we should recognize how much money that is. Dr. Kisiel reported last year it was close to $250,000 with $180,000 coming from the PTO supporting a whole variety of things, particularly enrichments, which were taken out of our budget a couple of years ago and AEF sponsored a whole range of new creative initiatives for the teachers throughout the district. They constantly support our schools in different ways and our children are the beneficiaries of their goodwill.
Mr. Harrison reported in view of all the questions and answers that have been presented here, I think the meeting has served its purpose, which was to recognize all of these boards and what some of the issues are. He thanked all the boards for putting this together.
Mrs. Bratton reported we hear a lot about the federal and state mandates and understandably, Dr. Kisiel has to deal with them and the pressure they put on our education. She questioned what the Town is doing about binding arbitration. We have mentioned Special Ed quite a bit tonight, but binding arbitration is a huge chunk – is there anything that you actively do at the state level that can get a message across for the towns that are having trouble? They do not have as much control as they wish they could on binding arbitration. Dr. Kisiel stated the Town Manager may have more information on that. He also stated maybe we can get the politicians in our community to help persuade the legislatures, although I can tell you I did meet with the representatives to talk about the issues we are
talking about tonight, particularly about the funding for Special Education. There are unfunded mandates that we face in education.
Mrs. Bratton reported this town has gotten very good at communicating with everyone in town, all the town’s people. Everyone knows when the referenda’s are – people come to meetings and understand better where the money is going. Is there any way to give more information to the town’s people? It seems like individuals all with the same concerns might make a big impact, instead of one or two Town Officials here and there. If the State level got a lot of pressure from the town – you cannot tell people what their opinion should be when it comes to binding arbitration, but we can say this bill is coming up in two months – here are your two Representatives and your one Senator and their addresses – give your opinions to them. That way we are not telling
them what to say but it is another piece of information where the public can feel more involved. Dr. Kisiel reported he thinks it is possible to get both the town and district websites indicate upcoming legislation that could in fact make people aware. He reported he gets informed of upcoming legislative activity so I know what bills are pending and my association tells me what to say and who to contact. I think from the town side that would be a very interesting source of information for our community to have. They, in turn, can contact their legislators regarding their positions and the various issues. Mrs. Bratton reported we have the Board of Education Newsletter, we have the Town Newsletter. Dr. Kisiel reported this would be primarily on the website – I do not think those sources would be appropriate ones. He stated, if we had a link that was on our website, which indicates pending legislation and who they contact or the email
addresses of the legislators, that kind of information would be valuable.
The Town Manager reported we do belong to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the Conference of Small Towns, and the Capital Region Council of Government, all of which have legislative programs that deal with a variety of issues. He reported it is difficult to expect to make any significant change in some of these particular mandates because the constituent groups in favor of them are generally way out of balance with those that are not in favor of them or are opposed to them in a different way. Obviously, we put out additional information on the website. The issue really conveys the meaning of them, not just what they are, but the impact they have on the individual communities and sometimes that is hard to gage initially. It is almost something you have to look at retrospectively and
then come back and say what this mandate does. In many cases there is very good rationale for them; on the part of their well meaning, they serve a purpose.
Mr. Harrison reported we have a number of questions – some of them are clearly school related- some are Town related and Chairman Carlson has agreed to address those. Some of them are repetitive but we will try to get to all of them. The first one is for the Board of Finance:
1. Are public school children in Avon constituents of the Board of Finance?
The answer is, yes. All residents of Avon really are constituents of all three boards. The same voters elect the members of the three boards. The same voters provide the property taxes that support the schools, the police department, and the library. All three boards are very much involved, care about, and are concerned with all residents of the town, be they students, parents, or retirees. Mr. Gugliotti stated there is a technicality that needs to be explained on that because the town is in that question – Can students address the town meeting on the budget? I think the answer to that, per the Charter is, no. The Town Meeting on the budget says taxpayers can address the Town Officials with respect to the budget, with no disrespect intended for the youth and for the
high school kids. But, if this was intended to say there was going to be a troop of high school kids seeking to address the budget meeting, I do not think this is provided for in the Town Charter.
Mrs. Zuras stated it should also be clarified that the constituents of the Board of Education are not just parents of children. It is everyone that pays taxes also. Mr. Harrison reported all three boards are elected and receive tax income from everybody in town. He also reported this is a comment for future presentations, which is an endorsement of a concept of this three board team.
2. Please provide more information on state grants, DCS, Special Education, for example, so we can get a sense of the benefits of our state tax dollars. Second, please explain the rolls of the schools Social Workers and how they differ from the Town Social Services Director, who serves the entire community?
Dr. Kisiel reported the school social worker works with the town, citizens and students on education issues pertaining to the schools, where as the Town Social Service Director- the Town Manager reported he deals with the whole community in a variety of areas. It is important to know there is a lot of communication with the Police Department, Social Services Department, the School Psychologist and counseling staff at the school system, with the various ecumenical participants in the community. There is quite a network – some of it is formal, some of it is informal in terms of some of the families that cross all of these different venues. Very often, a very comprehensive response is needed that does cross some boundaries between the school and the town and other agencies. There is always room for
improvement, but generally we have done a pretty good job of handling that. We are still small and our clientele is limited to a point where we can manage it.
3. During the budget process, for both the town and the Board of Education, is there ever a review of the impact that staff reductions “across the board, would have on financial services? If not, why not?
Chairman Carlson reported we reduced our staffing by three fulltime positions in the upcoming budget. We have actually held our standing pretty flat over the last ten years. Yes, we have assessed the financial impact of that. We know what the savings are. Mrs. Roell reported what Dr. Kisiel said, several years ago when Thompson Brook was open, in order to keep administrative staff the same, we eliminated two positions at the administrative office, to put in the Principal and Vice Principal. For each of the budgets all those additions in the schools are looked at every year. It is not automatic that everything just continues on – it seems that way because our schools have been growing every year for the last 16 years. If we were in Simsbury or some of the other towns where
enrollment was going down, we would have positions that could be eliminated.
Mr. Harrison reported the next question is a two part question that has to do with the High School construction money and if you do not spend all of it:
4. How will the Board of Education and the Town Council use the Avon High School surplus? How will the Board of Education pay for the new tractor they need, if they cannot get at some of that surplus? Have decisions already been made?
Dr. Kisiel reported the Building Committee gives us a report on what has not been spent at this point. We know some of the contingency; we know what has gone into the overall costs, the contingency is around $750,000. If and where the money comes from remains to be seen, based on change orders that may be coming through, so it is an unknown. FIP has notified the Building Committee that we can anticipate a definite surplus in construction costs. The Town Manager stated we have always said that money will be used to reduce the bond. So, it is really not surplus. Dr. Kisiel reported, as far as the tractor, I guess we will continue to have our custodians shovel. Someone questioned if that would increase operating costs? Dr. Kisiel reported it will increase overtime, which
definitely increase operating. Mr. Gugliotti stated, so the tractor would be a good idea.
5. Is it true that a tax increase of 6% is needed just to cover all the current, contractual, and general “lights on” budget needs? If it is not 6%, what is it?
Mr. Gugliotti stated he had asked that question at some point. They said the only thing they projected in the referendum was the school, nothing else. That would be about 6.14%.
6. How large is the rainy day fund? Would it be wise to use it to offset 08/09 expenses?
The Town Manager reported the surplus is about 5.82%, which is about $3,500,000. The only problem with using that to offset operating expenses this year is what will we do next year? If we do not have the income, we will be back here talking about the same issues. He reported the figures I gave you on the General Fund and Designated Fund comes down to roughly $630,000. They do not include the ECS payment that we got. Subsequently we will start looking here if the legislature approves. It does not include the CRRA payments that currently are in litigation, it does not include conveyance tax revenues that might be collected this year but we did not budget for because that grant program sunsets June 30, 2008. So, those are revenues that will be coming in the current year.
7. How far is the 07/08 budget negative now? Are we projecting a break even at this time of the year end and what are we giving up to get there?
The Town Manager reported in terms of the amount of the deficit, we are obviously through eight months of the year, and we do not know our final figures for the year. Based upon what we do know, we are probably looking at a net deficit of close to $500,000. Mr. Harrison asked if that includes the $189,000 that Mr. Franzi talked about. The Town Manager reported, yes. What we will have to do, as we get closer to the end of the year, the Board of Finance, the Board of Education and the Town Council will have to try to sharpen their pencils so we can do our year end forecasting and then make the appropriate supplemental transfers and appropriations and other things that are necessary. Fortunately, we did not include the various revenue sources in the 07/08 budget and hopefully they will be
sufficient enough to cover the potential deficit that we have. Hopefully, in the 08/09 budget, we will have those deficits covered through appropriate appropriations.
Someone questioned whether we are not likely to finish in the black on either side of this? The Town Manager reported in terms of the whole town budget, on gross budget, revenues and expenditures will be in the black. In other words, we will have an operating surplus – we will not have an operating deficit. There may be operating deficits within some of the components, such as the Board of Education budget and the Town budget, but we will have an operating surplus for the year.
8. With the published budget shortfall vote on the education and town budget, and continued reluctance to raise the taxes of homeowners sufficiently to meet these budget needs, what plans exist for economic development in the Town of Avon?
Chairman Carlson reported we continue to work with commercial establishments, our town Economic Development Officer, Phil Schenck. We pursue any number of opportunities some of which are publicly known, some of which are not for obvious reasons. But wherever we can, we are essentially trying to understand our space. We have been approached and we know of a couple plans for Senior housing in some cases or open space in one case. These are all very preliminary plans and we approached them and then got really tight zoning. We do not want this town to become is a large industrial base. We also do not have the infrastructure to support it. We are not close to a highway.
9. What macro ideas do you have to reduce spending?
Chairman Carlson reported the things that we have tried to do the most of over the past few years, is acquire open space when it becomes available with the large land owners. A number of years ago, the Town Council tried to make contact with the large land owners to curtail potential developments, which in many cases drive the costs up. We likewise did not encourage a significant number of new programs. We have had zero staff, very few programs – we have resurrected the brush program a couple of years ago, but it is always susceptible to be cut in the future. The third thing we have done to try and curtail spending, is to spend money. We can be very short sighted when we do not repave the number of roads that we need to do, don’t repaint our buildings the way they should be,
because those costs come back to us two and threefold higher in the long term.
10. The town is down four police officers and those positions are not filled. Is this a savings on our budget or are we creating overtime?
Chairman Carlson reported yes, we are creating overtime and therefore there is no savings to the budget. The Town Manager reported we do save somewhat, but it is not a great a savings as the position would not be, but we do save on health benefits on that side of the equation.
11. Is it possible to approach the Governor and/or the Legislature to try and regionalize record keeping electronically for the 160 towns rather then have it done by the individual towns?
Mr. Harrison stated this is an excellent suggestion and if we have not already approached them through various associations like CCM and others we will follow up on that.
12. On regionalization, would it be possible to combine the Police Departments of Avon, Simsbury, Farmington, Canton and possibly Granby?
Chairman Carlson reported we actually have had conversations with various municipalities surrounding us in addition to the five talks about sharing of dispatching services and other such things. Frankly, in some cases that has been met with a very cold reception by other towns, but we do continue to chase that down. In terms of the regionalization of overall services, the answer is no, we have not. We believe some of the tax payers wanted it for administrative purposes, the jail services; there is a question of transportation on that. The Town Manager reported there were a large number of regional courses done with various police departments for accident reconstruction teams, one we used with the dump truck crash. We also have a regional drug squad, diving team and others, as well. He also
reported we have been open to regional dispatching and other regional things for a long period of time. We almost had consummated some relationship with some of our neighbors, only to have it fall apart at the last minute. We do provide regional animal control services out of Canton.
Mrs. Bratton stated the Board of Finance has some big decisions to make in the next month and having been an observer with the binding arbitration and attending as many meetings as I could this past school year, but we need some feedback to help make this decision. If the Board of Finance were to approve your spending increase, which will result in a higher than usual tax increase, what assurances do we have that this does not become the norm? In other words, when you combine the Board of Education and Town Council budget, if it turns out to be an 8% tax increase in general, if this goes year after year, and salaries do not keep up with that. We think voters need to know where there is a specific project, people vote yes or no, and then it is done. But when this may be something that is a pattern,
they may look at it differently. Chairman Carlson stated a lot of people are on fixed incomes and people cannot get wage increases just because their taxes have gone up. He reported we look at the budget and say what we need to do to keep our infrastructure in place and not have it deteriorate? What do we need to do to fund our previously decided upon obligations, such as pension benefits, healthcare benefits, etc.? The budget increase that we have before you, or requested increase, is one that he cannot say is negative next year or a 12% rate, he does not know at this juncture. We do not know utility costs next year, but 19% increase this year certainly is catching us in a real bad spot. We are not adding any new programs. It is not like we are doing something drastic or different. Mrs. Bratton reported we are not saying there already is a pattern, but people who come to vote in May, may perceive that we have never had this before, is this
a one-time fix of possibly and 8% tax increase, or is that going to become the norm? Mrs. Zuras stated I think what you are saying is, by having a more significant increase this year, is that giving us permission to continue it year after year? Mrs. Zuras stated it has worked the other way before, like 2.9 to 3% was seen as the only thing we could get.
Dr. Kisiel stated it is sort of intellectually broad Mrs. Bratton, to ask a question like that. We are all intelligent adults here. No one wants to be taxed any more than absolutely necessary. How does anyone know what is going to happen from year to year? Mrs. Zuras reported the 2.9% to 3% has been used by the Board of Finance as the limit. Mr. Harrison reported that is because it was the only number that voters were willing to approve.
13. Why does Special Education transportation dollars go up as much as regular and $60,000 versus $77,000 with less students involved?
Mrs. Roell reported regular education we have 72 seat buses, we need 3 bus runs. Special Education a lot of the kids are on their own special busses, either going to out of district schools or even within the school district, for kids that are in wheel chairs or handicap that have their own bus or one or two kids are sharing the bus. She reported if we get one or two more kids, it will costs a lot more for them than for regular ed kids. Dr. Kisiel reported this year we entered into an agreement with Canton to transport two of our kids to special education facilities, which saved us $20,000.
14. Will the new technology proposed for the high school be a cost saving measure because it will let us do state classes online, avoiding the need for more teachers?
Dr. Kisiel reported we think it will be in the long term. We all recognize that the classroom of the future will not be like the classroom of today. The classrooms of the future will be more open but access to the internet, virtual classrooms and online courses will be the venue of choice. The answer to the question is, yes. It will save us money.
15. Is there an opportunity that students can take AP classes online?
Mrs. Roell reported currently our AP classes have 15 – 20 students in the individual classes and where it is less; it gets combined with an honors class. There are very few classes. Dr. Kisiel reported all of the AP courses cannot be taken online – you cannot take an AP Chemistry course online. He reported the need for teachers will always be there, they will just have different levels of responsibilities. Certain courses, like English, could be done online and our youngsters are taking advantage of opportunities currently.
16. Are 40 year roof’s available for schools as they are for homes?
Mr. Franzi reported it depends on the roof’s thickness and partly the roof itself – some roofs have a 30 year life now so it may be available in the future.
17. Comment Regarding Pay to Play: Although it sounds like sports are free and available to all, the current policy is not equitable. For example, the new crew program costs each family $250 for one semester – there are families already paying. In addition, there are many other activities that charge for participation, like TBS Theater. Therefore, I support a new program that charges each participant a fee.
Dr. Kisiel reported the Board approved the Crew Program as a pilot program this year. This budget is willing to absorb 20% of the cost for that program this year. The biggest problem with the crew program is the shells, and right now they are trying to do new shells. He said if it is to purchase new shells, that is another story, because the Board has only agreed to 20% for the overall costs for the next year, as we did previously with ice hockey.
18. The Boards and the Town Council are facing budget shortfalls. How does the proposed budget plan to avoid such shortfalls in the future or are shortfalls the result of poor budget planning?
Chairman Carlson reported it is not poor planning. As Dr. Kisiel explained, children move into the district and there is no way of knowing that they may have special education needs. You cannot plan for that, you cannot plan that utilities have increased.
19. How do the High School building savings reduce tax obligations for the future?
Chairman Carlson reported out of surplus, whatever is left over, from the construction budget, is not really going to be used in a way that will reduce taxes, it just means that the taxes will not go up as much.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS -None
V. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Clerk
| 
