BRISTOL — Less than a dozen people attended the Jan. 10 hearing on the Newfound Area School District Budget Committee’s proposed $24,596,576 budget for 2020-21, and because there were no questions, the meeting lasted a mere 20 minutes.
Vice-Chair Kim Bliss of Alexandria stepped in on short notice to conduct the meeting when she learned that Chair Ruby Hill of Danbury was ill. Also missing was Groton budget committee member Steve “Slim” Spafford, who had recently resigned.
Bliss outlined the increases from the current budget, noting that the proposed operating budget of $22,797,689 is $512,439 higher than the current-year budget of $22,285,250, amounting to 2.3 percent. The total budget, which includes food services and federal grant programs, represents a 4.5 percent increase, she said.
Bliss said the district is proposing five new staff positions: a district-level social worker at $90,319, which includes wages and benefits; three paraprofessionals for $103,026; and a 5.9-hour paraprofessional for Danbury’s kindergarten program.
In addition, the district plans to purchase new smart boards, computers, and furnishings.
Bliss noted that other anticipated changes include a 5 percent increase in transportation costs due to a new bus contract; a $21,600 increase to cover the services provided by charter schools; and a $33,250 increase in occupational therapy.
Capital Improvement Program
Bliss said the district’s tax cap prevented any funding for the ongoing capital improvement program in the proposed operating budget.
She did not mention that the budget committee had included CIP funding in the default budget which takes effect if voters turn down the proposed budget.
The CIP, intended as a long-term plan that evens out capital spending for the upkeep of school facilities, as well as assuring the public that needs will be addressed throughout the district, has proven to be a contentious issue since the Newfound Area School Board adopted it without a public hearing three years ago. It became a divisive issue when the school administration, looking for a way to catch up on long-neglected repairs and maintenance that could not be funded under the tax cap, had exploited a provision of the Official Ballot Act, RSA 40:13, that stipulates that the school board can determine what constitutes a one-time expenditure.
In March 2017, prior to the school board’s adoption of the CIP, voters had agreed to exceed the amount of spending allowed under the tax cap to pay for roof repairs at Newfound Regional High School. In developing the next year’s budget, administrators included the roof repairs in the default budget, claiming that, because the repairs were listed in the CIP which the school board adopted in May 2017, they were part of the ongoing maintenance, rather than a one-time expenditure.
When voters objected to the creative definition of one-time expenditures, the school board doubled down, causing a rift that eventually led to last year’s vote where district taxpayers removed the school board’s authority to establish the default budget, placing that responsibility instead with the budget committee.
Budget Committee Chair Ruby Hill obtained an attorney’s explanation of new laws that sought to clarify how to calculate a default budget, as well as a copy of the school district attorney’s letter that had been used as justification for including funds for the roof repair in the default budget.
“I handed out the letter on how it’s created and explained why we now have the job, and made it clear why there was a concern,” Hill said in a telephone interview.
“The school attorney’s letter was based on the premise that the public had approved the roof repairs as part of the CIP,” she said. “That’s not true.”
Advocacy Over Neutrality
Minutes of the Dec. 12 budget committee meeting reveal that, rather than acting according to their roles as impartial arbiters of the budget, members approached the default budget as advocates for “Newfound pride”.
According to Hill, the meeting’s agenda called for the development of a draft default budget which would be taken up at a subsequent meeting. Hill missed the meeting due to a family commitment, and she said she was shocked to learn that the other committee members had instead finalized the budget.
The committee had been seeking the information it needed to develop the default budget for weeks, Hill said, but did not receive anything from the administration until the afternoon of Dec. 12. Superintendent Stacy Buckley provided a draft default budget based on the state laws, while Business Administrator Michael Limanni provided a second draft that included the capital expenditures identified in the CIP.
According to the meeting minutes, “Members discussed the pros and cons of the CIP. John [Jenness of New Hampton] stated that the buildings haven’t looked this good in the past 20 years. Kim [Bliss] stated that the improvements to the buildings bolsters [sic] Newfound pride. If CIP was not in the budget, improvements to the facilities would potentially not be happening. This past fiscal year, roof replacements/repairs, paving and interior painting have happened.
“Don [Franklin of Hebron] made a motion to accept the default budget that included the CIP, totalling [sic] $22,821,470. Jeff B[ird of Bridgewater] seconded. Vote: 6-0-0.”
“They just considered the two options,” Hill said. “There was no attempt at an option ‘C’.”
Hill said that, when she went to the next meeting, she expressed her concerns and asked the other members to reconsider their votes. They would not do so, she said.
Had she not been sick on the night of the budget hearing, Hill said she would have made everyone aware that she didn’t support the default budget.
Groton’s Steve Spafford said he also opposed the committee’s default budget and, while his resignation from the budget committee was for other reasons, “at least my name won’t be connected with it.”
Spafford said he had been a lone voice objecting to many of the spending items.
Identical Budgets
The budget committee adopted every figure listed on the school board budget.
“The only thing they discussed was the new district social worker request,” Hill said, noting that she had questioned the need for the position as proposed. Seeing no support from other members, though, she said she never made a formal motion on the matter.
Hill disputed the explanation for not including the capital improvement program in the regular operating budget. Instead of being excluded because it would have exceeded the district tax cap, Hill said the explanation the budget committee received was that the district had taken on a lot and needed to take a break in order to finish up what had been started.
At the time of the budget hearing, the school district had received one petitioned warrant article, although the period for submitting such articles would continue through Jan. 14.
No one came to speak on behalf of the petitioned article, which is an attempt to persuade the school board to place certain capital expenditures on the warrant as separate articles, rather than including them in the regular budget.
Voters last year passed a similar non-binding article asking the school board to establish the criteria for placing expenditures exceeding $24,999 on the warrant for discussion, but the school board did not act on it, saying it would create too long a warrant. The new petitioned article outlines the exceptions that would keep the warrant manageable, but the article’s confusing language makes its passage questionable.
