|
Notes provided by: Marlene Rockmore Joint Meeting of Board of Selectman and School Committee on Preliminary Budget for FY06, December 6, 2004 Executive summary by Jan Stetson, Full text of Marlene's notes The discussion had three main parts:
expense projections Brian Sullivan:
expense projections Kay Donovan:
PART TWO
PART THREE discussion:
Below are notes of the meeting summarizing presentations of the participants. The meeting was designed to begin the budget discussion process earlier in the cycle. Diane Mahon chaired the meeting and the meeting was organized by School Committee member Sue Sheffler, who was asked to do this by the School Committee chair. The discussion had three key themes. The first theme was a summary of the revenue and expense projections by the Town Manager, Brian Sullivan and Superintendent of Schools Kay Donovan, which focused on structural growth of expenses at 4% per year while revenues increase at 2.5%. The second theme was framing Arlington's expenditures on education, public works and public safety determine if the community is providing service levels that are reasonable when compared to peer communities. The last part of the discussion was reflection on the discussion by all the participants Brian Sullivan, Town Manager presented overall budget projections for FY06. Expected revenues are approximately 95.7 million (2% increase). Additional revenues are the $2 million increase from 2 ½ property tax increase and $305,000 state lottery distribution, which has already been received. State Aid and local receipts (e.g. parking fees for example) are expected to be flat. Reserves were drawn for FY05 os reserves are not available for FY06. Symmes building permits will yield about $300K over 3 years. Expenses are projected to increase 4%. These are primarily fixed costs expenses that are negotiated into collective bargaining agreements and include increase health costs ($1.9 M), increased pension contributions, utilities increases, and wage adjustments, which totals a $1.8-2 M. These are structural expenses, which increase each year by 4%. Discussion of comparative data to peer communities Mr. Sullivan presented some data about peer communities that was collected in a study from Vision 20/20. There was an extensive discussion of how numbers are difficult to compare (for example, in some towns a Xerox machine or transportation costs might be distributed over many departments while in another town the cost may be centralized). However, factoring out those issues, Arlington ranks at the bottom half of 230 towns for per capita spending in most areas of comparison. Sue Sheffler summarized a 163 page study called The Municipal Yardstick (available at Robbins Library). In this study, Arlington spent proportionately less on education that comparable peer communities. There was a lengthy discussion about what are valid comparison numbers in order to determine what responsible level of expenditure should be for Arlington in education, public safety, and public works. Discussion of School budget projections by Kay Donovan: Schools need 4% increase to maintain current service level. Big budget items are fixed costs are insurance, contracted salary, longevity and step increases. Additionally, with a new school opening, there will need to be a put back of a principal and secretary, and there is a critical need to make sure there are adequate school nurses due to increased medical issues. Schools expect to receive state aide to offset special education costs and to receive an early reimbursement from the School Building Assistance Fund for the Dallin. But also needs to pay out for Sheltered English/ELL as mandated by NCLB, sick leave buy back, salaries and health care. She stated that the town simply does not have the funds to cover these costs. Key points in summary discussion following presentations There are two approaches to budgeting. One is a service level budget where a service level wanted is defined and justified and it is determined what it will cost. For example, a service level might look at how many guidance counselors and psychologists are needed at AHS and what do comparable towns have Then a decision process leads to whether the service needs to be cut or funded. The alternate approach is based on an ability to pay model. In this model, current level of service is used as base, and budget is based on maintaining current services. There was a discussion that projected deficits have been whittled for $14 mill to 2.5 mill- 3 shortfall that is fixed as it is negotiated into contracts, which is a structural deficit. Concern was expressed about deferred payments to past retirement health benefits payments which are coming due which may increase deficit in FY07 . Given the situation, the town is looking at 3 options, to cut school services again, find revenues to maintain level of service, or have an open, budget planning process to address these issues. There was a discussion about the possible amount of state and federal aid given potential increase in funds for No Child Left Behind (which are typically earmarked for poor school districts). It was stated that we are potentially looking at a structural deficit and neither the federal government nor the state will solve. It may be a local issue. The next step in this process will be a meeting of the Budget Revenue Task Force on Dec 20 at 6PM. The School Superintendent expects to have a school budget in January. There will also be an effort to bring state representatives to a meeting to find out when state funds can be expected. The above notes is a summary of the discussion taken to the best of my ability and I will be glad to make any corrections to them. Marlene SPOT
offers these notes as a service to the community. |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
