Amended BCS Budget Features 0% Tax Increase

by Phillip Zema
A semblance of hope was carried into Friday’s pivotal budget workshop. While a contingency budget seemed inevitable, the Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) – a conglomeration of teachers, BOE members and District residents – recommended a number of ways to amend the budget. For over a week the group met, and, despite disagreeing over several fundamental issues, like the economic, community and educational merits of keeping Grafton open, they devised strategies to cut costs without compromising the District’s educational needs. They did so in a forum based on mutual respect, transparency and hard work.
Serving as a resource to the BOE, the LAC proposed a number of cost saving measures. The initial goal was to reduce the budget by $500k to $1m. In the hope of postponing consolidation, the Grafton sub-committee hoped to reduce the cost of running the school from 627k to 300k. Glenn Giumarra and Craig Mosher, members of the modular installation sub-committee, found that Berlin Elementary had enough space to fit the District’s elementary students. If either pre-k or the fifth grade was moved out of the building, the District would not need to rent two modular school buildings, an estimated savings of about $400k. There were also proposals to make cuts to BOCES of $16,523 in total, to the administration of $44,900 by replacing one of the high school principals with a Dean of Students and to the transportation department of $25k.
A number of state education laws and union contracts, like those made with instructional faculty placed formidable barriers on how much could be saved. Consequently, many of the proposed savings were unfeasible. For example, even if Grafton replaced some of its faculty with PTO approved community volunteers and implemented other cost saving measures, like having a head teacher instead of a principal, it would still cost $400k to run Grafton. Yet it was proposed that even if Grafton remained open, the District could still shed $64k off the initial budget. The LAC took no official stance on Grafton’s fate but simply made some recommendations to the BOE.
Presented To The BOE
On May 27, barely a week after its formation, the LAC presented its findings to the BOE. The Board was clearly pleased by the efforts but had several reservations. For one, there was concern that the State would not allow Grafton to replace its teaching and library assistants with volunteers. Moreover, some of the savings depended on only having a school nurse available part time; the Board said State law required each school to have a full time health administrator. There were also worries that the Jr./Sr. high school would not provide the best educational settings for fifth-graders. There was also concern that some of the solutions could not be implemented in the short-term (i.e. within 24 hours).
At the next evening’s budget workshop, the final day to avoid a contingency budget, the BOE presented an amended budget, which included many of the LAC’s recommendations. This budget featured a zero 0% tax increase, which is slightly lower than the contingency budget. Under this proposal, no modular units would be added, but Grafton would be closed. Pre-K and fifth grade would remain at Berlin Elementary, and the administrative and business offices would be moved to Cherry Plain. Although Berlin Elementary would house over 400 students, more than the ideal maximum occupancy as recommended by the State, it was claimed that no education law would be violated.
As anticipated, the Board did not unanimously accept this budget, especially considering it entailed Grafton’s closure. Board Members Beverly Stewart and Tom Morelli voted against the budget, as they were chiefly perturbed by the District’s lack of a long term plan. Morelli felt that before consolidation took place, the District needed to strongly consider its long term best interest. He implored the BOE and administration to evaluate the merits of keeping Grafton open. Stewart admitted that if Berlin Elementary did not require millions in renovations, she might approve of the budget. She disapproved, however, of sending kids to a school in such poor condition. Stewart added that, over time, consolidation would force the District to reconsider another multimillion dollar renovation project, one the community already shot down. Furthermore, she felt the District’s short term plan was out of whack as well.
The arguments surrounding the budget were by no means amiable. Board Member Gina Goodermote expressed frustration over the lack of progress made by the Board. She felt the Board was always stuck on the same issues, which prevented them from moving ahead. Board Member Elizabeth Miller shared these concerns, claiming a lack of consensus prevented the Board from devising a long term plan. She asserted that due to the lack of money either buildings had to be closed or programs had to be cut. While Miller felt bad about Grafton, she felt that educational programs trumped buildings. Sandra Owens added that keeping Grafton open would result in a 5.24% budget increase. Board of Education President Frank Zwack added that he wholeheartedly supported the programs. He also worried that many of the arguments were based on narrow perspectives and people were not thinking about what was best for the public at large.
Cyril Grant, the Superintendant of Buildings, reported that the State had declared all three elementary schools to be unsatisfactory, and so each needed serious repairs. Grant argued that if you left Grafton and Stephentown open, they would require expensive renovations as well. Board Member Jeffrey Paine claimed that the District could not formulate a budget based on “wishful thinking” but solely on clear-cut facts. Paine felt that because the District was so polarized and disunited, no budget would pass. He made a motion to adopt a contingency budget, demanding that the Board address it immediately. The motion was not seconded.
Stewart remarked that if no budget would pass, then they should work to create a more publicly attractive one. Board Member John Greene suggested the Board take a more diplomatic route; he suggested that the Board approve the amended budget but with the caveat that nothing happen to the Stephentown and Grafton buildings (like selling them). This would keep the District’s options open, and it would perhaps increase the likelihood of the budget passing. The rest of the Board was not on the same page, however.
As the meeting dragged on and the arguments continued over semantics, the District’s future, what people said and the budget itself, a contingency budget seemed inevitable. Yet most of the Board wanted to avoid this outcome. While Miller feared a contingency budget was likely, she opted “to give the voters a shot.” Before the vote, Morelli added that the Board needed to keep Grafton open for at least another 6-12 months. Superintendant Gregory said that if the District took this route, student educational programs would be jeopardized. The few audience members in attendance clapped at her response. In the end, the Board approved the amended budget by a 5-2 vote with Morelli and Stewart dissenting.
Budget Hearing June 8; Vote On June 15
The adopted budget stands at $18,281,716. The contingency budget would be $18,349,860. There will be a budget hearing on Tuesday, June 8, at 7 pm at the Berlin Elementary School. Then on Tuesday, June 15, there will be a budget vote which will be held at the Berlin Fire Hall. At that time, the public will also have the option to approve the purchase of a 58-passanger handicap accessible bus and a $100k Capital Project – both are State aidable.