Woodstocktruth,

 I was somewhat disappointed that only a dozen or so  citizens attended last Tuesday’s Board of Finance public hearing though I have to admit there was not a great deal of new information presented; however, there were a few notable points particularly in the question and answer period following the presentations.

 Mrs. Paul presented a spreadsheet showing the six year history of spending for the education budget and did separate the “All HS related costs” from those for PreK-8 for which the BOE is actually responsible for managing.   The analysis compared the 2008-9 budget (actually it wasn’t the latest budget but the one prior to the last revision) to last year's budget and to the actual expenditure for the years 2003-4 through 2006-7 – apparently "apples to oranges" is no longer the issue it was on April 8th.  While the analysis was on total spending and so didn’t account for changing enrollments – a 7.8% increase in HS enrollment over the period compared to a 3.5% decline in PreK-8 enrollment – it was good to see the numbers for HS and BOE managed costs separated and discussed.  Maybe next year we can get to per student spending.

  Mr. Hosmer in presenting the Prop 46 worksheet noted that funds for the Bennett farm and the Revaluation were being reviewed by the Town Attorney as to whether they can be rolled over as part of the base budget for next year since they are non-recurring expenses.   I did have a conversation with the Town Attorney regarding these issues, and more, on the 17th in which he made it quite clear that items such as these, and the revaluation in particular, could not be “rolled over” and went further to explain that monies under the “necessary to cover” exemption in Prop 46 were NOT the same as monies resulting from increases in the grand list.  These monies are exempted for specific purposes and not as general funds.  I pointed out to the Board that it is unfortunate that they didn’t recognized this in their discussions on the 8th as they could have simply included only $125,000 as was originally planned and legally rolled that over to the next budget, as a one-time recurring expense, and spread the cost over two years, lowering the burden on the taxpayers.  Much of this discussion took place during the question and answer period.

 Following up on this last note, also during the question and answer period, Preston Shultz asked how long the town had been aware of the revaluation issue.  While there was no specific answer given, it was clear that it had been several years at least.  He then asked why the board had not allocated funds across a five year period to further lower the impact on the taxpayers.  The Board of Finance’s response was curious- it’s the selectmen’s fault “they didn’t budget it”.   Of course on April 8th it was the Board of Finance that decided the people should get hit for the full $250,000 this year when the Selectmen had only asked for $125,000.  Interesting…

 Another “interesting" moment came when Mrs. Paul was asked if transportation and SPED are state mandated programs, and are, as they were described in her presentation, “Statutory Requirements” over which the BOE had little or no control, why for five of the last six years those items had shown reductions averaging more than fifty percent during the budgeting process.  While she explained that she didn’t have the numbers right there the state does not mandate the spending and that only the programs themselves are mandated; how they are run and the spending is left to the “discretion” of board. These reductions/changes, and the failure of the town treasurer or Board of Finance to recognize these changes, resulted in roughly $1.3 million dollars in over taxation over the last four years.   This certainly raises serious questions as to the use of these programs on the Prop 46 worksheet since the spending is NOT mandated and therefore might be argued not exempted under the “necessary to cover” clause. 

 A curious night indeed.

Dave Richardson