Woodstock’s ordinance that ties increases in the budget to increases in available funding from additional taxable property, additional State and Federal funding, and other increases in funds such as investment income, like any law, is open to interpretation. 

The intent of Proposition 46 is very clear; to keep individual property owner’s taxes level from year to year.  The overall budget may rise to spend any increases in aid from the state, and revenue from new homes and other sources.  The individual’s property owner’s tax, determined by the mil rate, is not affected by these budget increases since the increases are paid for by these other sources.  The individual property owner’s tax may rise to cover certain exceptions that weren’t included in the previous year’s budget but for which the town is responsible in the new budget year. 

These special exceptions, where the property owner’s tax may increase, are listed in the Ordinance and must be voted upon at Town Meeting.  Exceptions include emergencies that were not budgeted but still must be paid, increases in state mandated expenses, legal obligations such as a fine or legal settlement the town has to pay, and increases in debt service, generally for a large project the town has agreed upon and cannot pay for all in one year.  At the time the ordinance was enacted, in 1979, the state was reasonably generous with the grants given to the town, and the mil rate stayed level. 

The minutes of the Board of Finance (BOF) give some history on changes in the mil rate.  In the fiscal year ending 1985, there was a 4.5 mil increase because of exceptions.  Additional funding was needed to meet the State’s mandated minimum educational requirement, there was an increase in debt service for the school roof, and the town had a court ordered payment for hospital bills for Woodstock residents unable to pay. 

The mil increase in 1988 was required to meet the State’s mandated minimum educational requirement.  For fiscal year ending 1990, the mil increase was due to additional borrowing for construction on bridges, the Town Hall, and at Woodstock Academy.  In 1991, the cost of the revaluation and costs associated with bridges and the landfill contributed to an increase in the mil rate. 

In fiscal year ending 1994, the mil increase was due to additional borrowing for asbestos removal at Woodstock Public School.  During that year there was also a budget supplement passed for mandated Special Education costs and for an unexpected increase in the students attending Woodstock Academy.

After 1994, the BOF minutes are less detailed and do not include an explanation or discussion of the mil rate increase.  For some years, the BOF minutes mention the allowable increases were approved by town counsel. 

Increases in the mil rate due to additional debt service because of construction of town hall, and the new middle school are expected. The mil rate stayed fairly steady from the mid 90’s through 2000.  There has been a steady increase in the mil rate since the revaluation in 2001.   Yet we have also had a decrease in our debt service as we have paid down our borrowings. 

Woodstock town people have fought hard to keep Proposition 46 during these past several years.  Each year, the town has passed a budget within an interpretation of Proposition 46.  Sadly, those budgets have not been well scrutinized, with a good look at what the money is spent on, how we compare other towns, and what our long range plans.  Instead, there seems to be a false sense of security that we are spending well because we are within Proposition 46. 

Fiscal year 2006-07 ended with a General Government surplus of about $257,000.  This was due primarily to a warm winter not requiring a lot of snow removal, the decision not to hire a tenth person at the highway department, and an over-estimate of insurance costs.  The cost of the new roof on Town Hall, an unbudgeted expenditure, brings the surplus closer to $200,000. 

This coming budget year, we need to scrutinize the town budget as we are scrutinizing our own budgets at home.  The town’s interpretation of Proposition 46 has not kept Woodstock mil rate from steadily rising.  This year’s interpretation lists state mandated increased expenditures of over $842,000.  Where do those numbers come from?  What makes them state mandated?  Why would the full cost of the revaluation for 2010 be considered a state mandated expense in the fiscal year ending 2009?  

As Dave Richardson has pointed out, each exception for an emergency, or increased transportation expenditure for a new bus, or increase due to borrowing or unanticipated Special Education expenses, have permanently increased the budget base upon which Proposition 46 is built.  Based on past practice, for fiscal year ending 2010, the base budget will include the $842,000 of the previous year’s exceptions. 

When I first read Proposition 46, I objected to it because there was no allowance for inflation.  That was before I understood that one-time-only exceptions increased the base permanently.  Now I have no more worries about inflation. 

I worry that, once again, we will not look at the specifics of the budget.  In June, will we pass a budget with over a 1 mil increase and still not have budgeted for improvements for storing road salt at the Highway Garage?  I wonder if this budget is in compliance with Proposition 46 and also benefiting our town to reflect our needs, values, and pocketbooks?