Woodstocktruth:

Updating the situation with Prop 46 and over taxation in Woodstock, during the February 7th Board of Selectmen’s meeting we were informed that the town attorney, Mr. Robert DeCrescenzo, had been requested to review the issues I have been raising concerning violations of Prop 46 which have lead to the over taxation of taxpayers in Woodstock.  I was also requested to write a letter outlining any additional concerns I had beyond those outlined in my December 26th email to the selectmen.  This was done on February 8th and sent by email to the board of selectmen and the town attorney. On March 5th the town attorney responded. See it -HERE-

In his letter of opinion to First Selectman Walker of March 5th, Mr. DeCrescenzo makes several key points in addition to a general review of the Prop 46 ordinance:

First, he reaffirms the validity of the ordinance, the validity of which has been repeatedly affirmed by past town attorneys.  He then goes on to state that the Board of Finance “has a duty to develop and propose to the Annual Town Meeting a budget that is consistent with the Proposition 46 ordinance” – see pg 3,  paragraph A, last sentence.  Further he continues in paragraph B to make it clear that all actions of the Town Meeting must be in compliance with Prop 46 as well. Of note is that all of this is consistent with Mr. Bouton’s opinion from May 1993.

He also goes on to discuss the issue of non-recurring expenses exempted under Prop 46, such as emergency expenses.  In paragraph C(4), he states that such items “should be backed out of the base budget for purposes of calculating the next year’s Budget Cap”.  This resolves the issue of creating annuities out of what were approved as “one time expenses”.

What is not addressed in his March 5th opinion letter is the issue of the errors. With the approval of Mr. Walker, I have had discussions with Mr. DeCrescnezo concerning these points including the necessary corrections to bring the next budget in compliance.  I have provided additional information which he is reviewing.

What are the implications of all this? 

Well, the clear and simple errors resulting from the failure of the treasurer and Board of Finance to update the Prop 46 calculation sheets to reflect the what was in the Board of Ed’s budgets as they were presented to the town for approval in each of the last four years means that those budgets were NOT in compliance with Prop 46, and even though passed in the Town Meeting/Referendum, were/are therefore invalid.  In addition, the “rolling over” of non-recurring items, such as emergency expenses, further adds to the problems with these budgets and to their lack of validity and to what will be necessary to get back in compliance.

While there is no practical, or legal, way to go back and “correct” these budgets to make them suddenly valid – taxes have been collected and the money has been spent –  there remains the impact of these errors on the current budget and hence next year’s budget if the “roll-over” is not corrected when calculating the base for  the 2008-09 budget.  The solution to this problem is actually quite simple; correct the roll-over that is to be used as the base for the 2008-09 budget. 

More specifically, this correction is as follows:

Why might you ask is this increase so low?  Because over the last four years the taxpayers have been over charged, and monies spent, to the tune of $1,512,915 meaning that what would have been this year’s increase, and much more, was actually collected and spent over the last four years.  This is how town government, for town government spending without debt, and the BOE, for per student spending without debt for grades K-8, managed compounded annual growth rates in spending in excess of 8% for the last four years.

For reference, Woodstock Academy on the same basis, for the same period, held compounded annual spending growth at 3.5%. 

The breakdown of the $1,512,915 is as follows:

Errors from Prop 46 Calculation Sheet in – 

Transportation Expense: $720,540
 
Special Education: $536,716

Impact of non-recurring “roll-overs” –

Emergency Expenses: $195,272

Legal Judgments: $60,387

I expect there will be more on this over the coming days and weeks.

Best Regards,
Dave Richardson