PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS PROPOSED BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSSIBLE STATE FUNDING FOR OUR CITY, THEREFORE A LOT OF FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS MUST BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAS A TEAM EFFORT!
(click on each page to print out a copy of the Mayor's budget message)
15 comments:
Many taxpayers will be upset with the proposed tax increase, but the only other option is to cut spending which would include staff reductions and elimination of services. The money to pay for the current level of services has to come from somewhere.
I applaud the Mayor for being able to reduce the mill rate even further than what was accomplished by the Board of Finance and Taxation. There are hopefully a few ways that the Mayor and the Council will be able to further reduce the costs of government in New Britain. I look forward to reviewing his entire budget proposal.
How about larger cuts to the school budget? Just put more kids in each classroom and then you can eliminate teachers. I was just watching Glen Beck explain that with today's technology one teacher could easily teach several hundred students, if we just utilized the available technology correctly. He said the teacher's unions are standing in the way of our properly teaching our children.
I have to respectfully disagree with Glen Beck. Several independent studies show a strong correlation between class size and student performance, especially in elementary school where the foundation for learning occurs. Technology can be a great aid, especially when paired with teachers who know how to use it, but to assume any bit of technology will mystically allow teachers to teach two or three times the current class size is ridiculous.
Additionally, educational technology is quite expensive. SmartBoards, educational software, remote learning equipment, and the like can cost quite a bit, and then you have to train your staff to use it. While investing in learning technology is a good step and may lead to some reduction in staffing needs it is not a magic bullet. Finally, there is a minimum level at which the city must fund education in order to receive the State contribution to education. Even if the City were able to reduce staffing and other costs below that level we could not fund less than the minimum without risking losing State funding.
I agree, the school board seems to be the majority of the budget. There sure seems like they could find more places to cut.
How about just trying not to waste money. It seems that every time I hear about the govt spending money, they don't even estimate the cost. Look at Sherwood wanting to add another 5 million to the school project. What exactly was he wanting to buy with this extra money. Was there something that was left out of the estimates. Did they forget they needed a roof for the building and needed the extra money. Just throwing more money at a good cause doesn't make it any better. How about looking for a way to do the same project for less than 10 million. Does the school have to spend everything they are given? Maybe they should look to how they can save money before they start spending it.
Frank,
Nice piece of reporting that even the Herald didn't have!
Nicholas Mercier said:
Finally, there is a minimum level at which the city must fund education in order to receive the State contribution to education. Even if the City were able to reduce staffing and other costs below that level we could not fund less than the minimum without risking losing State funding...
I have one question about this free money from the state, whereby we must spend a certain amount of money on education to qualify for state funding: Where does the state get this money from, before they give it to us free? Don't they either take it from us in taxes, or get it from the federal government who took it from us in taxes? So if we have to spend enough of our money, in order to qualify to get some of our own money back, wouldn't we all be better off if we just spent less money in the first place?
I guess I am just still confused about where the state gets this money from that they are able to give it to us free.
To Town Crier:
Just because New Britain does not get their share of the Educational Grant doesn't mean that the State or Federal government will magically reduce taxes. Yes, the money is not 'free' as all money has to come from somewhere, but our school district could not function without the funding. We are funded at nearly 69% from the State and Federal government. So the alternative to the meeting the minimal requirement for educational funding is to cut educational funding by more than 70%. Do you really think that is a valid option? Rather than focusing on semantics how about we focus on coming up with realistic solutions. Thanks.
On this blog from Frank Smith regarding the Mayor's Proposed Budget, Nick Mercier wrote,
"... Finally, there is a minimum level at which the city must fund education in order to receive the State contribution to education. Even if the City were able to reduce staffing and other costs below that level we could not fund less than the minimum - referred to as the MBR -without risking losing State funding."
There has been some comment on this comment from Nick.
The point of this excerpt from Nick's comment was known and thoroughly examined by the Finance Board & by Mayor Stewart before they presented their respective budget proposals. Both entities knew and respected the fact that they could not fund below the MBR and their budget proposals reflected that point.
Yet at the meeting Thurs. evening where the Mayor presented his budget proposal, Mayor Pro Tem, Trueworthy insinuated that there might be something illegal about Mayor Stewart's proposal especially with regard to funding for education.
This insinuation suggested - probably be design - that the Mayor's budget was Illegal. The only public objection to Trueworthy's statement at that meeting came from me. I mentioned that his assertions were preamture and irresponsible. I state that again now! This is one of the few comments made - by me or anyone - at that meeting that Jim Craven failed to mention in his report in The Herald.
Nicholas,
If the state or the federal government won't "magically reduce taxes" if we in New Britain don't take the education grant, then does that mean that our state and federal elected officials are not doing their job to make sure it gets cut from the budget if we don't take it?
Mill Rate Increase in Proposed Budget
The Mayor’s proposed budget contains an increase of 2.55 mills, bringing the mill rate to 37.53. This is the first time in the Mayor’s tenure that he has had to increase the mill rate. For those who are unaware the mill rate is the amount of taxes owed per $1,000 of assessed value. Another way to think of it is 10x higher than the percentage of taxation. So the percentage of taxes has gone from 3.498% to 3.753% (or less than a .3% increase.) This increase is less than what the Board of Finance of Taxation was able to recommend after they took a first pass at the budget.
In the letter that accompanied his budget proposal the Mayor said “I believe this budget [...] balances the burden between increasing property taxes and slashing services” and that “[The budget] is the best we can do under the tough situation we face as a community.” In the coming months it is hopeful that the Mayor and the Common Council can reduce the proposed budget and the accompanying mill rate increase.
The Mayor also acknowledged that there are several unknown factors which could either positively or negatively affect the budget. First is the proposed insurance increase of $7 million. The Mayor believes this to be too great of an increase and is going out to bid, hoping to reduce the increase in insurance costs by $4.2 million. Additionally, the budget assumes that State funding to New Britain will remain level, as is proposed by the Governor. If the State reduces funding levels they would obvious negatively effect the budget situation for New Britain. Finally the Mayor estimates that staffing reductions and department reconfiguration could save the City in excess of $1 million and the Mayor urges the Common Council to work with him and the department heads to enact these needed changes.
The budget is now before the Common Council who will have 60 days to adjust it to their discretion before returning it to the Mayor for final approval. If any citizens speak out on the matter of the budget or the tax increases you may do so at any Common Council meeting. We will also post any additional budget meetings on our calendar of events. If you would like to view the proposed budget you may view it here and the proposed special revenue fund budget here. You may also review the entire section of the City Charter that deals with the budget process here.
The RTC Town Committee issued statement
"If the state or the federal government won't "magically reduce taxes" if we in New Britain don't take the education grant, then does that mean that our state and federal elected officials are not doing their job to make sure it gets cut from the budget if we don't take it?"
Even if the funds were removed from the State budget the tax relief would be spread across all citizen in the State. The overall tax relief to any citizen in CT would be minimal. Though in this economic climate I imagine the State legislature would simply use the funds to lower the State deficit.
This, however, is besides the point. We could not fund our education system with if our funding from the State, 70% of our total education, was removed. So talk about not reaching meeting the minimum funding level does not make good fiscal sense.
Nicholas Mercier has left a new comment on your post "MAYOR STEWART'S POPOSED BUDGET":
"If the state or the federal government won't "magically reduce taxes" if we in New Britain don't take the education grant, then does that mean that our state and federal elected officials are not doing their job to make sure it gets cut from the budget if we don't take it?"
Even if the funds were removed from the State budget the tax relief would be spread across all citizen in the State. The overall tax relief to any citizen in CT would be minimal. Though in this economic climate I imagine the State legislature would simply use the funds to lower the State deficit.
This, however, is besides the point. We could not fund our education system with if our funding from the State, 70% of our total education, was removed. So talk about not reaching meeting the minimum funding level does not make good fiscal sense.
Posted by Nicholas Mercier to Frank Smith Says NB at April 19, 2010 6:59 AM
Mr. Mercier Why was a board of Education member stating that there will some 200 school teachers laid off due to budget shortages?
The budget request made by the Board of Education was $131.7 million. The recommendation of the Board of Finance and Taxation was $10.2 million less than their request and the Mayor's proposal is $3.5 million less than that. I would assume the statement made by the Board of Education member was based on realizing the entire difference between the budget request and the proposed budget (roughly $13.7 million) through staffing cuts.
Some of the reasons for such a dramatic increase in their budget request was contractual increases, the elimination of a grant funding paraprofessional positions in the all day kindergarten program, as well as returning to a full 186 day teacher year. Last year to close a budget shortfall the Board of Education negotiated with the teacher's Union for 4 furlough days.
These factors combined with the fact that the State is not increasing their funding to the City leads to any increases being taken squarely upon the shoulders of the City. I hope that the Board of Education and the Teacher's Union would work together to address this budget shortfall. It is possible that they could reduce the school year to what is legally required by State law, they could also attempt to secure furlough days from their staff again. While it is understandable that teachers would feel frustrated when asked to take furloughs year after year I think everyone can agree that these past few budget years have been extraordinary situations with no increase from the State in order to help share the rising cost of education. If you'd like more information feel free to email me at nichmerc[at]gmail[dot]com.
Post a Comment