- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
|
Iacobucci said the Board didn't have access to the online survey even though she requested access. Other board members said they had e-mail summaries listing the responses, and that they had read all the responses, both from the on-line version and the printed version that people responded to at the Fire Department carnival last weekend. Iacobucci wanted to postpone the vote, but others were concerned that postponing the vote would delay a booklet explaining the budget be mailed to all district residents. They feared the delay would mean some residents would not receive the booklet until after the vote.
| How They Stack Up | ||
| Budget | Amount | Difference From This Year |
| 2005-2006 (This year) | $20,007,661 | |
| May 16th (Defeated Budget) | $21,533,679 | + $1,546,018 |
| June 20th (New Proposed Budget) | $21,366,210 | + $1,358,550 |
| Contingency Budget | $20,989,818 | + $762,157 |
"In fairness to all the people in the district, they have to have the ability to take a look at what we're asking them to vote on," said Board member Dan Brown. He went on to say, "I do not appreciate your saying that people are withholding information from you. That is inappropriate, and you do not have the information to be able to say that. It is rude. My vote is to leave it on the agenda as-is."
All seemed to agree that more time to process community input would be better, but that there was not time to do that and still make printing deadlines and deadlines mandated by the state. Iacobucci seemed conflicted because better communication is a long standing issue of hers, but she wanted more time to consider the input. She moved to postpone the vote until Monday, but nobody seconded the motion.
Superintendent Mark Lewis then presented the revised budget that is $1,358,550, or 6.79% higher than this year's budget. It cuts an additional $186,809 from the defeated budget. He described increases that are contractual and thus cannot be removed including $396,341 in salaries, $264,630 in health insurance and others that totalled $1,359,209. He stated that no programs will be cut with this budget. Those present were given a detailed budget breakdown with explanations for rises and cuts which is also available on the District Web site. (See Box Above)
| New Proposed Budget | |
| Budget Difference Net % Increase Tax Levy Increase Tax Rate Increase Tax Rate Percent | $21,366,210 + $1,358,550 6.79% 3.82 0.66 3.6% |
However, if this budget does not pass (or if the BOE had decided not to put another budget to a vote) a State mandated contingency budget would automatically go into effect. That would be $343,861 less than the defeated budget. Lewis said that programs would definitely be affected by a cut that steep.
Many questions were raised, and board members noted that much of the input they have gotten over the past week has been contradictory. When asked by Joe Woelfel, "Have there been any changes made whatsoever as a result of the public's expression of concerns?" Brown replied, "The obvious answer to your question is no. The issue is the timing in getting the responses." Brown said that it would be considered in last minute additions or cut, but noted that because it is not a scientific sample of the community that it should not be given too much weight. He added that despite that it is important to listen to any comments from the public.
Better communication was a theme throughout the meeting. Many people said that if they had had the information presented in the way it is being laid out in the breakdown, they would have voted for the defeated budget. Board members expressed their discomfort with the press of time in the process. Two last minute additions were proposed, including restoring $9,000 for advanced placement test fees and adding a technology integration position. Both were voted down and the budget was passed 4-2 with Drake and Iacobucci voting against it.
----
v2i21