Ansonia School Board President Reacts to Proposed Tax Board Cuts

ANSONIA - It never ceases to amaze me how the Board of Apportionment and Taxation can approve such drastic educational budget cuts to Ansonia's children. My fellow Board members and I have worked so hard on presenting a transparent budget that is beyond fair and reasonable in today’s Educational realm in order to meet the needs of all of our students.   

We have worked tirelessly with our Team which includes the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Business Manager, and all other educational stakeholders to draft a budget that is fair in all aspects. Our Team has also worked closely in joint sessions with the Board of Alderman as well as with the Mayor and his staff in an effort to be transparent. Mr. Bshara stated several times that he felt that the exchange of information from the Board of Education and the City has been commendable and has made the process transparent and easier in his opinion.    

As a result of these  meetings, a resolution was drafted where in summary, the Board of Education would  receive back from the City their entitled Excess Cost {as mandated by State Statute) to include in their budget and they would encumber some expenses from the city that have been used for school facilities  9i.e Liability Insurance, the new Portables Project,...).  In my opinion, the Board of Apportionment and Taxation showed no regard for this collaborative effort or resolution and took it upon themselves to once again cut the Education budget.  They went as far in no uncertain terms as to attempt to pit the Library closing against the Board of Education budget.  The two are distinct and separate entities and should be treated as such.

The Board of Education has never attempted to pit City entities against one another and it is inappropriate and unethical for any other City official to do so. Our Team has been working on what these cuts will do to us and I will mention them later in this article.  However, please allow me to clear up several misconceptions.  The first is the fact that only 40% of the Board of Education's budget comes from local funding as opposed to the other 60% which comes from state and federal grants.  Another common misconception is that the Board of Education is always the highest in terms of percent increase each year. This is simply not true!

As we have shared this year, our presented increase is only 2.6% which is directly in line with all other departments in the City (i.e. Police, Arms, Public Works...).  The truth and reality behind the Excess Cost reimbursement is that the City has kept that money and declared it as revenue for the past four years and in effect have only given $234,933 to the Board of Education.  Here is the entire four year breakdown:

 

BOE Expenditures in Relation to Special Education Costs and Excess Cost Reimbursement,Rev.Jan 13,2017
YEAR	TOTALBOE BUDGET	TOTAL Budget INCREASE  $$$	SPECIAL ED TRANSPORTATION	SPECIAL ED TUITION	TOTAL SPECIAL ED T&TCOSTS	ANNUAL SPECIAL ED. T&T INCREASE   $$$	EXCESS COST REVENUE (NET) TO THE CITY (BUDGET)	TOTAL BOE 4 YEAR BUDGET  INCREASE OFFSET BY  EXCESS COST REVENUE TO THE CITY
2012-13	27,000,000		925,566	2,966,885	3,892,451
2013-14	28,000,000	1,000,000	1,094,999	3,656,009	4,751,008	858,557	815,000
2014-15	28,897,207	897,207	1,391,307	4,120,313	5,511,620	760,612	950,000
2015-16**	30,053,095	1,155,888	1,453,766	4,512,942	5,966,708	455,088	960,551
2016-17 Est.	31,260,484	1,207,389	1,550,810	4,959,293	6,510,103	543,395	1,300,000
TOTALS 4 YEARS		4,260,484			22,739,439	2,617,652	4,025,551	234,933

 

NOTES:

1. Total 4 year BOE budget increase is $4,260,484.  Total City 4 year Budgeted Excess Cost Revenue (Net) is

$4,025,551.

2. Net impact of BOE budget just on Excess Cost revenue on taxation over 4 years is $234,933.

** FY 2015-16 City returned$ 503,482 in Excess Cost revenue to the BOE, thereby also reducing Sp. Ed

costs.

 

 

So while the resolution will indeed help this year and moving forward, additional cuts are detrimental and frankly unwarranted. The last misconception is with regards to the Alliance Grant which we have written and have received for the last four years. The basic understanding with this grant is that the initiatives set forth under this grant funding be continued and the funding be granted from the local budget.  Therefore, cuts from our budget will not allow for this to happen.

 

Furthermore, in terms of cuts which my Team feels are detrimental to all of our students would include the following:

 

-All day Kindergarten would be cut back to half day Kindergarten.  This is a direct result of us losing the Alliance Grant next year and since we are not granted the 2.6% increase, this would happen in order to save costs. However, interesting to note here that there was an agreement between the BOE and the City which stated that the City would pay for all day K once the Alliance Grant went away. Mr. King, the President of the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, even acknowledged that this agreement was in place when the BOE presented their budget to them.  Yet he and his Board voted to cut education, thus inherently voting to cut all day K.

 

-The staffing for the new Portables project at Mead.  These portables would allow the district to incur a cost savings by having some of our outplaced students return into district.  However, without the 2.6% increase, this cannot happen and as a direct result the Board of Education will continue  to encumber  these high costs for out of district placements.

 

-All sports.  While no one on our Team wants to see sports eliminated, there is simply no other option. In order to keep classroom sizes manageable and not to lay off more teachers or administrators) as we have in the past, there is simply no other way. We are currently almost at maximum student to teacher ratio in each of our classes and we are one of the highest per pupil to Administrator in the state, 200 students per Administrator as compared to similar size school districts.  For example Derby is at 145 students per Administrator and Seymour is at 152 students per Administrator.

 

In closing, I would like to say that the Board and I are hopeful that the Governor’s budget does give more money to Ansonia for Education, however, until that happens we have to plan accordingly.  As you have read, we have done everything in our power to present a fair, transparent, and equitable  budget for the largest employing entity  of the City of Ansonia(360 employees) however the Board of Apportionment does not seem to see it that way. It is our hope that once presented to the Board of Alderman that this budget will change and that we will be allocated the necessary funds for all children in Ansonia.

 

Respectfully written by:

 

 

William Nimons, President

 

Ansonia Board of Education

 

Ansonia tax board revises workshop schedule

Ansonia alderman opposes bonding referendum plan

Calls $4.9M project an 'absolute embarrassment to the city'

By Alderman John Marini

I wanted to share some comments regarding the bonding project in Ansonia.

Bonding is a great idea and one that can save the city money in the long term.
In fact, I have long urged the use of bonding as a way to fund large and necessary capital expenses.
I support many of the items on the list, including funding for school security, the nature center and the fire house roof.
However, this bonding project has been run miserably since its announcement and is at this point an absolute embarrassment to the city.
The bonding proposal was cooked-up by a small group of city officials in closed-door meetings.

The bonding projects were hand-picked by this exclusive group, with no formal input by the Board of Aldermen or its sub-committees.

The proposal was first presented to the full BOA on May 6, 2013 (in the absence of bond counsel) at which time many of the aldermen expressed concern over the projects selected and the speed at which this $4.9 million spending project was proceeding at.

The proposal was hastily revised to meet some of the board’s concerns.
In good faith I extended my support of the proposal in the hopes that the BOA could work together for the good of Ansonia.

I stressed that the bonding made sense so long that it was financially advantageous for the city. I also explained it was important to educate the public on the savings the bonding could generate.
I offered my own political signs to be converted to publicize the bond. I also made clear that the entire city needed to be involved in this matter.

Since that time the project has run entirely off the rails.

·         The advertising of the referendum violates state law. One official made a unilateral decision to use city funds to purchase signs endorsing a "yes" vote on the bond. Beyond the fact that the BOA should have approved of this expenditure, the signs were flagrant violations of state campaign finance laws.
         The city cannot spend funds to endorse a specific vote on a referendum.  Moreover, the signs did not indicate who paid for them and they were improperly placed on public property.  The signs were eventually taped over to hide the "yes" vote endorsement. Even more disturbing, the signs were purchased and distributed before the BOA even approved the referendum (in fact, the BOA will not vote to approve it until June 11).

·     The bonding project no longer makes financial sense. Due to a last minute change (made by a small group of city officials outside the scope of official meetings) the bonding items have been broken up piecemeal into several different ballot questions.  Bonding only makes sense if the total amount of the bond justifies incurring long-term debt.  There is now a risk that the bond questions with smaller price tags will pass, while the larger ones will not.  If this occurs, there will be no tax savings.  There will only be increased spending.

·     The referendum will cost taxpayers between $14,000-$17,000.  The referendum could have been included on the general election ballot in November.  The June vote requires all polling stations in Ansonia to be opened at an estimated cost of $14,000-$17,000.

·    Poor communication between city leaders. The full BOA did not meet to approve expenditures for advertising the bonding project.
        The full BOA did not meet with city departments to determine the best bonding projects. The full BOA did not consult with bond counsel to discuss the details of the bonding process. In fact, the full BOA has yet to meet with bond counsel on this matter.  The full BOA had no say in the last minute change to break the bonding proposal up into line items. Who made these decisions?  A small and exclusive group of city leaders behind closed doors.

·     Poor communication with residents.  Does anyone in town know what they are to be voting for on June 25?  I personally advocated Ward meetings to educate the public about the bonding project.  Only now, in the 11th hour, are these meetings being scheduled.  Moreover, press from the city has done little to educate the public about why this bonding project must be done at such an accelerated pace. Poor communication may result in a low turnout at bond time, except for those who have a vested interest in any given proposal. Given that the referendum requires merely a majority vote to pass, a small group of voters can easily commit the city to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for their particular project.

·         Last minute changes continue. Many aldermen, myself included, learned only on June 6, 2013 (via the Valley Independent Sentinel) that the bond was being broken into separate ballot questions, purportedly at the recommendation of bond counsel. It was also only recently divulged that the aldermen would have to vote a second time on the bonding proposal and that a vote by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation would be needed. Are there other changes coming?

There will be a final vote by the Board of Aldermen on June 11 as to whether this bonding proposal goes to referendum on June 25, 2013.
I am sorry to say that I can no longer support the proposal.

The decision to spend up to an additional $4.9 million of taxpayers’ money is an important one. It should have been afforded careful consideration and thoughtful planning. It should have been the collective effort of Ansonia’s entire city government.

Instead, this multi-million dollar bonding project has become the badly managed “pet project” of a small group of city officials. This is absolutely unacceptable.
I am urging that the full Board of Aldermen vote to cancel the June 25 referendum.

I also urge members of the public to share their thoughts with the Board of Aldermen at the public hearing scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 11 in City Hall.


Marini is a 7th Ward Republican.