The city's Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, says that the difference for the average taxpayer between the city's budget as it stands now and increasing it by the Council's Finance Committee's recommendation of $2.8 million for the city's students is $72. That translates into a $1.38 a week for the average taxpayer.
The Finance Committee's chair, Carvin Hilliard, has acknowledged that the proposed increase of 3.8% is not sufficient for the Board of Education to maintain its present level of programming. He acknowledges that cuts would have to be made. Some have argued that the Board should cut administrators. If you have any knowledge about schools and how they get better and you look at our level of administrative staffing, you know cutting administrators does not make sense. Besides, we would have to cut half the administrative staff across schools and central office to manage a reduction of this magnitude. My predecessors, as well as PTO members, have argued for curriculum specialists in order to maintain the quality of our educational program. How can it make sense to go back to the days when there was little monitoring of or focus on instruction and curriculum? Other than cutting administrators, no one on the Council or the Board of Estimate has made suggestions about where reductions could be made.
The Board of Education would be left with the challenge of doing that. We've already said there would be program cuts. Why is this so hard to understand or to believe? The money is going to have to come from someplace.
We don't have to tear this city apart over the school budget and we don't have to raise the budget by the full $2.8 million and the additional $72 from the taxpayers. Here's another idea for consideration but the Council and the Finance Director would have to publicly agree to do it:
1. Reduce the city's contingency line of $4 million that's dedicated to the non-school budget (45% of the total) by $1 million and shift that $1 million over to the school budget. This would have no impact on increasing the city's budget or raising taxes and still gives the city a contingency to cover contractual increases and shortfalls in estimates.
2. Increase the cap by $1.8 million and adjust the revenue side:
A. The conveyance tax alone could probably safely be increased by $500,000. An increase of this revenue by $500,000 offsets the need to increase taxes for the full $1.8 million.
B. There is probably general agreement that the State will increase funds for education by some amount. Norwalk's increase, in most people's judgment, will be at least $200,000. An increase of this revenue by $200,000 offsets the need to increase taxes for the full $1.8 million.
The net impact of these steps is to raise $1.7 million of the needed $2.8 million without impacting taxes at all. We will only need to raise $1.1 million by an increase in taxes. If a $2.8M increase requires $72, then a $1.1 million increase will require about $30 for the average taxpayer. That's an increase for the average taxpayer of a little less than sixty cents a week. I think most folks would agree that sixty cents a week to maintain the current level of our educational program for our kids is money they could find. Eliminating the anger and disappointment that will surely occur is worth the price alone.
We will continue to try to find a solution to this problem. We urge the community to join with us in persuading the Council to find one as well.
Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
There is a solution to the budget crisis
There is a way out of Norwalk's current budget crisis. But it will take some compromising and not everyone will be completely satisfied. Below is a proposal that I hope can become the framework for productive discussions.
When Tom Hamilton, Norwalk's finance director, made his original budget recommendation several weeks ago, everyone noticed that it would require roughly a 5.5% increase in property taxes. Common Council and Board of Estimate members said they were not pleased with so hefty a tax hike and would work to establish a final budget that kept the tax increase below 5%. I think that can be achieved. And I also think the Board of Education's budget can be increased from 3.8% to 6.23%, which is what the BOE needs to avoid program cuts. Here's how:
The Council would need to increase its cap by one million dollars; that would still keep the tax increase below 5%. The Council would also recommend to the BET that the extra million be earmarked for the BOE.
The BET would need to withdraw from the undesignated fund balance an additional million, again with the money earmarked for the BOE. This fund balance withdrawal – added to the projected withdrawals for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 budgets – would still enable Norwalk to project an undesignated fund balance for the 2009-10 fiscal year that was roughly 6.7% to 6.8% of total revenue. Hamilton has indicated that he would be comfortable if Norwalk matched the median percent fund balance for Connecticut towns and cities with AAA ratings, which is 6.9%. The additional draw down would leave us close to that goal.
The increased cap and the additional draw down from the undesignated fund balance would leave the BOE about $1.3 million short of what it needs to avoid cuts in the school system. The BOE would have to assume that the remaining funds would come from Hartford. With the governor's educational proposals, it's a safe bet that the city would receive at least that amount. Moreover, should the BOE received funds in excess of $1.3 million, those funds would be returned to the fund balance. (If there is a shortfall of funds from Hartford, the BOE would have time before next August to make emergency cuts.)
This can be done. We can keep the tax increase below 5%. We can maintain a healthy rainy day fund. And we can properly fund our school system.
Bruce Kimmel
When Tom Hamilton, Norwalk's finance director, made his original budget recommendation several weeks ago, everyone noticed that it would require roughly a 5.5% increase in property taxes. Common Council and Board of Estimate members said they were not pleased with so hefty a tax hike and would work to establish a final budget that kept the tax increase below 5%. I think that can be achieved. And I also think the Board of Education's budget can be increased from 3.8% to 6.23%, which is what the BOE needs to avoid program cuts. Here's how:
The Council would need to increase its cap by one million dollars; that would still keep the tax increase below 5%. The Council would also recommend to the BET that the extra million be earmarked for the BOE.
The BET would need to withdraw from the undesignated fund balance an additional million, again with the money earmarked for the BOE. This fund balance withdrawal – added to the projected withdrawals for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 budgets – would still enable Norwalk to project an undesignated fund balance for the 2009-10 fiscal year that was roughly 6.7% to 6.8% of total revenue. Hamilton has indicated that he would be comfortable if Norwalk matched the median percent fund balance for Connecticut towns and cities with AAA ratings, which is 6.9%. The additional draw down would leave us close to that goal.
The increased cap and the additional draw down from the undesignated fund balance would leave the BOE about $1.3 million short of what it needs to avoid cuts in the school system. The BOE would have to assume that the remaining funds would come from Hartford. With the governor's educational proposals, it's a safe bet that the city would receive at least that amount. Moreover, should the BOE received funds in excess of $1.3 million, those funds would be returned to the fund balance. (If there is a shortfall of funds from Hartford, the BOE would have time before next August to make emergency cuts.)
This can be done. We can keep the tax increase below 5%. We can maintain a healthy rainy day fund. And we can properly fund our school system.
Bruce Kimmel
Fund balance is larger than necessary
Norwalk's Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, believes the proposal put forward by superintendent Salvatore Corda to resolve the budget crisis is "fundamentally flawed." I disagree with Hamilton's conclusion. The finance director's analysis, in my opinion, is based on a very questionable premise – that the city of Norwalk requires an undesignated fund balance projection of roughly 7% for the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
But before discussing that premise, it might be worthwhile to note that the last time there was a major disagreement between Corda and the Board of Education on the one hand, and the Finance Director, the Common Council and the Mayor on the other, the BOE was correct.
That was in 2004 when the BOE negotiated a contract extension with the Norwalk Federation of Teachers. The health insurance savings generated by that contract over a two-year period were consistent with the projections made by the superintendent. The Mayor was wrong, and the finance department, relying on strict accounting procedures, refused to project savings beyond a single year.
Corda is now proposing that the BOE proceed as if its budget reflected a 6.2% increase (in reality, the increase is 3.8%), that it continues to look for additional savings and, most importantly, that the Board of Estimate agrees to make a special appropriation to cover expected shortfalls in various education accounts. I concur with Hamilton's view that this is not an appropriate way to craft a budget. Special appropriations are for emergencies, they should not be "planned."
But these are exceptional circumstances. The Common Council's ill-conceived spending cap, coupled with the phase-in of the last revaluation and the need to address expensive storm-drainage issues, along with the various question marks on the amount of education aid that can be expected from Hartford, have created a unique set of circumstances for Norwalk. Corda should be applauded for his imaginative proposal.
I also agree with Hamilton's decision to base his analysis on the possibility that the BOE might require an appropriation as high as $3.2 million. Considering Hamilton's responsibilities as finance director, he should indeed work from a worst-case scenario. However, I would suggest that the BOE and the BET agree to a hard number, perhaps as little as $954,000, depending on the latest information from Hartford. Whatever the amount, I believe it should come, as Corda suggests, from the fund balance.
And this is where I disagree with the finance director (and implicitly with Mayor Moccia). The key question for Hamilton is the size of the fund balance in 2009-2010. His entire analysis is based on being able to project a fund balance (or rainy day fund) that is at least 7% of total revenues for the 2009-2010 budget. The question is why?
According to Hamilton, we need to maintain a fund balance that is close to the median fund balance (as percent of total revenue) for Connecticut towns with AAA ratings, which is 6.9%. After factoring in fund balance withdrawals for 2007-08 (almost $4 million), 2008-09 (about $3.5 million) and 2009-10 ($0), he believes our fund balance will be roughly 7% of total revenues. That is close to the 6.9% standard, and thus Corda's proposal was dead on arrival, unless, of course, the city decides to raise taxes to unacceptable levels in the next two years.
But there is no compelling reason for Norwalk to match the median percent fund balance for other AAA towns. The rating agencies and fiscal monitors do not require it; the very existence of a median indicates wide variations among AAA towns. Moreover, we are larger than most Connecticut towns, and the rule of thumb is that the smaller the town the larger the percentage should be. In other words, Norwalk at 7% provides us with millions more to deal with a catastrophe than, say, Weston at 7%.
Norwalk could dip below 7% and the rating agencies would not be overly concerned, although they would consider Corda's proposal a questionable precedent that should not be repeated. (Our official fund balance policy requires us to stay between 5% and 10% of total revenue. A fund balance withdrawal of $1.5 million beyond Hamilton's projections would leave Norwalk at roughly 6.5% for 2009-2010.) It is important to note that during the latter years of the Esposito administration Norwalk hovered just above the 5% minimum, yet we achieved and then maintained a AAA rating. The point is, we are in good shape financially and there are funds we can tap into to solve this budget crisis.
Norwalk's Common Council and the BET have put the city in a difficult position. Limiting the increase in the education budget to 3.8%, when the cost of mandated salaries and health insurance alone requires a 5.7% increase, was a politically motivated gesture that will wreck havoc on our school system. Cooler heads need to prevail.
Fortunately, Corda and the BOE have come up with a proposal that opens the door. Now all we have to do is muster the political will to walk through it, sit down and seriously discuss how to solve this crisis.
Bruce Kimmel
But before discussing that premise, it might be worthwhile to note that the last time there was a major disagreement between Corda and the Board of Education on the one hand, and the Finance Director, the Common Council and the Mayor on the other, the BOE was correct.
That was in 2004 when the BOE negotiated a contract extension with the Norwalk Federation of Teachers. The health insurance savings generated by that contract over a two-year period were consistent with the projections made by the superintendent. The Mayor was wrong, and the finance department, relying on strict accounting procedures, refused to project savings beyond a single year.
Corda is now proposing that the BOE proceed as if its budget reflected a 6.2% increase (in reality, the increase is 3.8%), that it continues to look for additional savings and, most importantly, that the Board of Estimate agrees to make a special appropriation to cover expected shortfalls in various education accounts. I concur with Hamilton's view that this is not an appropriate way to craft a budget. Special appropriations are for emergencies, they should not be "planned."
But these are exceptional circumstances. The Common Council's ill-conceived spending cap, coupled with the phase-in of the last revaluation and the need to address expensive storm-drainage issues, along with the various question marks on the amount of education aid that can be expected from Hartford, have created a unique set of circumstances for Norwalk. Corda should be applauded for his imaginative proposal.
I also agree with Hamilton's decision to base his analysis on the possibility that the BOE might require an appropriation as high as $3.2 million. Considering Hamilton's responsibilities as finance director, he should indeed work from a worst-case scenario. However, I would suggest that the BOE and the BET agree to a hard number, perhaps as little as $954,000, depending on the latest information from Hartford. Whatever the amount, I believe it should come, as Corda suggests, from the fund balance.
And this is where I disagree with the finance director (and implicitly with Mayor Moccia). The key question for Hamilton is the size of the fund balance in 2009-2010. His entire analysis is based on being able to project a fund balance (or rainy day fund) that is at least 7% of total revenues for the 2009-2010 budget. The question is why?
According to Hamilton, we need to maintain a fund balance that is close to the median fund balance (as percent of total revenue) for Connecticut towns with AAA ratings, which is 6.9%. After factoring in fund balance withdrawals for 2007-08 (almost $4 million), 2008-09 (about $3.5 million) and 2009-10 ($0), he believes our fund balance will be roughly 7% of total revenues. That is close to the 6.9% standard, and thus Corda's proposal was dead on arrival, unless, of course, the city decides to raise taxes to unacceptable levels in the next two years.
But there is no compelling reason for Norwalk to match the median percent fund balance for other AAA towns. The rating agencies and fiscal monitors do not require it; the very existence of a median indicates wide variations among AAA towns. Moreover, we are larger than most Connecticut towns, and the rule of thumb is that the smaller the town the larger the percentage should be. In other words, Norwalk at 7% provides us with millions more to deal with a catastrophe than, say, Weston at 7%.
Norwalk could dip below 7% and the rating agencies would not be overly concerned, although they would consider Corda's proposal a questionable precedent that should not be repeated. (Our official fund balance policy requires us to stay between 5% and 10% of total revenue. A fund balance withdrawal of $1.5 million beyond Hamilton's projections would leave Norwalk at roughly 6.5% for 2009-2010.) It is important to note that during the latter years of the Esposito administration Norwalk hovered just above the 5% minimum, yet we achieved and then maintained a AAA rating. The point is, we are in good shape financially and there are funds we can tap into to solve this budget crisis.
Norwalk's Common Council and the BET have put the city in a difficult position. Limiting the increase in the education budget to 3.8%, when the cost of mandated salaries and health insurance alone requires a 5.7% increase, was a politically motivated gesture that will wreck havoc on our school system. Cooler heads need to prevail.
Fortunately, Corda and the BOE have come up with a proposal that opens the door. Now all we have to do is muster the political will to walk through it, sit down and seriously discuss how to solve this crisis.
Bruce Kimmel
The Council needs to exercise some common sense and raise the spending cap so that the BET and the BOE can make some reasonable decisions.
When Tom Hamilton, Norwalk's Finance Director, made his official operating budget recommendation for the 2007-08 fiscal year, more than a few folks noticed it would require roughly a 5.5% tax increase (after the final phase-in of the last revaluation was factored in), despite a proposed $5 million cut in the Board of Education's budget request. Predictably, members of both the Board of Estimate and the Common Council suggested the tax hike should be less than 5%.
At the time, I believed it would be possible for the Council and the BET to come up with an operating budget that reduced the 5.5% tax increase, plus restored funding to our school system. Adjustments would have to be made on the revenue side.
Which would not be risky: The city is anticipating additional revenues from the governor's educational initiative as well as from the real estate conveyance tax. Also, Hamilton's budget proposal projected a healthy $24 million undesignated fund balance (rainy day fund) by the end of the fiscal year, even after deducting the cost of the next revaluation. The $24 million amounts to about 9% of total expenditures, well above the minimum benchmark used by fiscal monitors and rating agencies.
But the Council made an irresponsible decision: It did not even discuss possible adjustments in the revenue column; instead, it arbitrarily adopted a spending cap that was $2 million below Hamilton's. The Council also recommended that the BOE's budget increase should not exceed 3.8%, the region's cost of living, even though about 5% of the Board's increase was due to contractually mandated salaries and benefits. The Council's spending cap – which I believe should be raised at least to the level recommended by Hamilton – put the BET in a bind; it now has very little room to maneuver.
The Council's budget decisions made lots of people angry, particularly parents of public school children. (I've also discussed the Council's action with residents concerned about flooding. They recognize that the lower spending cap could make it difficult for the BET to adequately address the city's drainage problems.) But I was also disturbed by the response of Sal Corda, Norwalk's superintendent of schools. Speaking before the Council on the evening it adopted the spending cap, he delineated myriad cuts in the school system that would have to be made if the BOE budget increase was limited to 3.8%.
Corda first spoke of $2.1 million worth of cuts that he and his staff had identified soon after Hamilton's recommendation was made public. Then he listed another $4 million in cuts that were identified that day because the Council's Finance Committee had reduced Hamilton's budget by $2 million the previous evening.
Corda's presentation bothered me for several reasons. The BOE never discussed the initial $2.1 million reduction, even though Hamilton's budget proposal had been public for a number of weeks. I, too, was at that Council meeting and was surprised when Corda presented it. Regarding the additional $4 million in cuts, while I appreciate the limited time frame, I was never fully informed as to what the superintendent was going to do that evening.
More specifically, I was not aware that Corda's long list of cuts excluded central office personnel. This, of course, immediately became the salient issue in the budget debate. Instead of discussing the needs of the school system, most of the discussion and headlines have focused on where the cuts should and should not be made. I would never have endorsed such an approach.
Corda has stood firm in his refusal to include central office personnel in his list of possible cuts. On several occasions he said that when he came to Norwalk the central office was depleted, barely functioning. True, but he appears to be unaware of the long struggle waged by the BOE to introduce literacy specialists (reading/writing teachers) into our elementary schools. Why are they on the superintendent's cut list? Are they less important than medium-level central office personnel?
Having a difference of opinion with the superintendent can be healthy. It keeps everyone on his or her toes. But the absence of communication between the BOE and the superintendent on these potential budget cuts is definitely not healthy. I do not agree with the manner in which the superintendent unilaterally and very publicly adjusted the BOE's budget request. And I will not approve a budget reconciliation document that excludes all central office personnel while making deep cuts among staff working with children inside of our schools.
Norwalk needs to get its budget act together. First, the Common Council played fast-and-loose with the Finance Director's proposal (which, by the way, implicitly had the blessing of the Mayor). Then, the superintendent of schools ignored the BOE and announced a series of cuts so one-sided that people could only scratch their heads and wonder.
The Council needs to exercise some common sense and raise the spending cap so that the BET and the BOE can make some reasonable decisions.
Bruce Kimmel
At the time, I believed it would be possible for the Council and the BET to come up with an operating budget that reduced the 5.5% tax increase, plus restored funding to our school system. Adjustments would have to be made on the revenue side.
Which would not be risky: The city is anticipating additional revenues from the governor's educational initiative as well as from the real estate conveyance tax. Also, Hamilton's budget proposal projected a healthy $24 million undesignated fund balance (rainy day fund) by the end of the fiscal year, even after deducting the cost of the next revaluation. The $24 million amounts to about 9% of total expenditures, well above the minimum benchmark used by fiscal monitors and rating agencies.
But the Council made an irresponsible decision: It did not even discuss possible adjustments in the revenue column; instead, it arbitrarily adopted a spending cap that was $2 million below Hamilton's. The Council also recommended that the BOE's budget increase should not exceed 3.8%, the region's cost of living, even though about 5% of the Board's increase was due to contractually mandated salaries and benefits. The Council's spending cap – which I believe should be raised at least to the level recommended by Hamilton – put the BET in a bind; it now has very little room to maneuver.
The Council's budget decisions made lots of people angry, particularly parents of public school children. (I've also discussed the Council's action with residents concerned about flooding. They recognize that the lower spending cap could make it difficult for the BET to adequately address the city's drainage problems.) But I was also disturbed by the response of Sal Corda, Norwalk's superintendent of schools. Speaking before the Council on the evening it adopted the spending cap, he delineated myriad cuts in the school system that would have to be made if the BOE budget increase was limited to 3.8%.
Corda first spoke of $2.1 million worth of cuts that he and his staff had identified soon after Hamilton's recommendation was made public. Then he listed another $4 million in cuts that were identified that day because the Council's Finance Committee had reduced Hamilton's budget by $2 million the previous evening.
Corda's presentation bothered me for several reasons. The BOE never discussed the initial $2.1 million reduction, even though Hamilton's budget proposal had been public for a number of weeks. I, too, was at that Council meeting and was surprised when Corda presented it. Regarding the additional $4 million in cuts, while I appreciate the limited time frame, I was never fully informed as to what the superintendent was going to do that evening.
More specifically, I was not aware that Corda's long list of cuts excluded central office personnel. This, of course, immediately became the salient issue in the budget debate. Instead of discussing the needs of the school system, most of the discussion and headlines have focused on where the cuts should and should not be made. I would never have endorsed such an approach.
Corda has stood firm in his refusal to include central office personnel in his list of possible cuts. On several occasions he said that when he came to Norwalk the central office was depleted, barely functioning. True, but he appears to be unaware of the long struggle waged by the BOE to introduce literacy specialists (reading/writing teachers) into our elementary schools. Why are they on the superintendent's cut list? Are they less important than medium-level central office personnel?
Having a difference of opinion with the superintendent can be healthy. It keeps everyone on his or her toes. But the absence of communication between the BOE and the superintendent on these potential budget cuts is definitely not healthy. I do not agree with the manner in which the superintendent unilaterally and very publicly adjusted the BOE's budget request. And I will not approve a budget reconciliation document that excludes all central office personnel while making deep cuts among staff working with children inside of our schools.
Norwalk needs to get its budget act together. First, the Common Council played fast-and-loose with the Finance Director's proposal (which, by the way, implicitly had the blessing of the Mayor). Then, the superintendent of schools ignored the BOE and announced a series of cuts so one-sided that people could only scratch their heads and wonder.
The Council needs to exercise some common sense and raise the spending cap so that the BET and the BOE can make some reasonable decisions.
Bruce Kimmel
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Mis Information
As another city budget year winds down, it seems there is much
mis-information circulating here in Norwalk. I write this letter to
clarify facts as they pertain to the Board of Education budget request.
Last year, the Board of Education budget was approved with an increase
of just over 2%, the lowest increase in the state. Everyone was
thrilled. But, this carried with it a problem for this year, one that
was made clear by the Superintendent to the Board of Education, Board
of Estimate and Taxation and the Common Council. The warning: next
year’s budget would be artificially high due to the use of one-time
funds to keep last year’s budget artificially low. Now it’s next
year.
Fact 1. It will cost over 5.5% to maintain programs that currently
exist. That is the same budget, the same programs that were approved by all City boards last year.
Fact 2. The Board of Education budget, as it now stands, is a 6.2%
increase. This includes some modest improvements, mainly designed to
keep students out of study halls and put them into classes in Brien
McMahon and Norwalk High Schools. Interested students have already
signed up, literally hundreds of them, for the added classes. The
classes may have to be cancelled.
Fact 3. The budget as it now stands, with a smaller increase, will
mean over 3 million dollars of reductions. Reductions suggested by the
Superintendent the include requested improvements, athletics,
academically talented positions, literacy specialist positions, and
many, many more.
Fact 4. The initial budget request for the Board of Education was a
7.7% increase. This was based on information available in the fall.
Current updated information and refined estimates have reduced the
increase to 6.2%. The City has been kept informed of this information
as it became available.
This is my 16th year on the Board of Education. Each budget year
presents challenges, but this year is different. The increase seems
high, but keep in mind last year’s was artificially low. What is
important is the product we provide for our students, and how we choose to invest in them.
Over the last 6 years our school system has made great progress.
Curriculum has been rewritten for every subject area. Millions of
dollars has been invested in new and renovated facilities and
textbooks. New teacher and administrator evaluation plans now hold
people accountable. And a district improvement plan that is being used
as a model for the state has been approved.
But the approved budget, as it stands, can’t even support what we
now have in place and results in a step backward. It just doesn’t make
sense. Especially in light of the cost, an added $2 a week, maybe even
less.
The Common Council can allow more funding to the Board of Education at their April 10 meeting. Let your Council representative know your
thoughts, at the meeting, or before. Do it for our students, all 11,000
of them.
Thomas J. Vetter
mis-information circulating here in Norwalk. I write this letter to
clarify facts as they pertain to the Board of Education budget request.
Last year, the Board of Education budget was approved with an increase
of just over 2%, the lowest increase in the state. Everyone was
thrilled. But, this carried with it a problem for this year, one that
was made clear by the Superintendent to the Board of Education, Board
of Estimate and Taxation and the Common Council. The warning: next
year’s budget would be artificially high due to the use of one-time
funds to keep last year’s budget artificially low. Now it’s next
year.
Fact 1. It will cost over 5.5% to maintain programs that currently
exist. That is the same budget, the same programs that were approved by all City boards last year.
Fact 2. The Board of Education budget, as it now stands, is a 6.2%
increase. This includes some modest improvements, mainly designed to
keep students out of study halls and put them into classes in Brien
McMahon and Norwalk High Schools. Interested students have already
signed up, literally hundreds of them, for the added classes. The
classes may have to be cancelled.
Fact 3. The budget as it now stands, with a smaller increase, will
mean over 3 million dollars of reductions. Reductions suggested by the
Superintendent the include requested improvements, athletics,
academically talented positions, literacy specialist positions, and
many, many more.
Fact 4. The initial budget request for the Board of Education was a
7.7% increase. This was based on information available in the fall.
Current updated information and refined estimates have reduced the
increase to 6.2%. The City has been kept informed of this information
as it became available.
This is my 16th year on the Board of Education. Each budget year
presents challenges, but this year is different. The increase seems
high, but keep in mind last year’s was artificially low. What is
important is the product we provide for our students, and how we choose to invest in them.
Over the last 6 years our school system has made great progress.
Curriculum has been rewritten for every subject area. Millions of
dollars has been invested in new and renovated facilities and
textbooks. New teacher and administrator evaluation plans now hold
people accountable. And a district improvement plan that is being used
as a model for the state has been approved.
But the approved budget, as it stands, can’t even support what we
now have in place and results in a step backward. It just doesn’t make
sense. Especially in light of the cost, an added $2 a week, maybe even
less.
The Common Council can allow more funding to the Board of Education at their April 10 meeting. Let your Council representative know your
thoughts, at the meeting, or before. Do it for our students, all 11,000
of them.
Thomas J. Vetter
Please Become Involved
It's fair to say that the Board of Education's budget process has been more difficult this year than in recent memory, and that the stakes are high, as they always are. Those involved on both sides of the debate cite statistics to justify their positions and the financial techniques available to provide remedy. This discussion is necessary and expected. It's much more difficult to quantify the effect of the debate on those directly impacted by it, no matter what the eventual outcome. Students are aware that the adults wield the financial power. They are aware that the results of the debate will indicate what priority their education has in the minds of these adults, as are others who are less directly, but no less significantly affected by the results - homeowners, business owners, realtors, and politicians, to name a few.
There can be no reasonable debate regarding the magnitude of the cuts that will be necessitated by the budget that seems likely to be approved. There can be and is plenty of debate regarding where these cuts should be made. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I won't use this forum to try to influence that debate. But I will cite one statistic. The budget Dr. Corda requested will cost the average Norwalk homeowner approximately $100 more per year than the one that the Common Council and Board of Estimate seem likely to approve.
The email address and telephone number for every Common Council member can be found at the following link: http://norwalkct.org/comcouncil.htm. If you think it's worth an additional $100 to support the budget Dr. Corda has requested, please contact your Common Council representative and ask him or her to raise the cap that has been set on next year's spending. If you think that an additional $100 is too much, I encourage you to contact your representative to let your feelings be known. Either way, I encourage you to participate. The message we are about to send regarding how Norwalk's residents feel about education will be loud, and it will be clear. Let's make sure it truly represents our values.
Rob Polley
There can be no reasonable debate regarding the magnitude of the cuts that will be necessitated by the budget that seems likely to be approved. There can be and is plenty of debate regarding where these cuts should be made. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I won't use this forum to try to influence that debate. But I will cite one statistic. The budget Dr. Corda requested will cost the average Norwalk homeowner approximately $100 more per year than the one that the Common Council and Board of Estimate seem likely to approve.
The email address and telephone number for every Common Council member can be found at the following link: http://norwalkct.org/comcouncil.htm. If you think it's worth an additional $100 to support the budget Dr. Corda has requested, please contact your Common Council representative and ask him or her to raise the cap that has been set on next year's spending. If you think that an additional $100 is too much, I encourage you to contact your representative to let your feelings be known. Either way, I encourage you to participate. The message we are about to send regarding how Norwalk's residents feel about education will be loud, and it will be clear. Let's make sure it truly represents our values.
Rob Polley
Norwalk students to pay the price if reasonable solution not found.
On March 29, 2007, in a memorandum to the Council, Board of Estimate, and the Board of Education, as well in a piece reported in the press, Mr. Hamilton responded to my proposal to use undesignated fund balance as a means of preserving the proposed tax increase approved by the Common Council and still satisfying the needs of the Board of Education as “fundamentally flawed” for several reasons.
First, Mr. Hamilton makes this claim because he contends that we would operate our 2007/2008 budget as if we had the additional $3.2 million dollars. Obviously he has chosen to disregard my assertion that we would do all we can to minimize when I said, “Be assured of our firm commitment to continue to pursue every available means to effect savings and to limit staffing to the absolute minimum number necessary. Agree to meet with representatives from the school district, administrators and the Board’s Finance committee, monthly to review our expenditures so you have assurances that we are keeping that commitment.” What would be gained if we chose to ignore this in our efforts to build a collaborative and trusting relationship with the Board of Estimate or the Common Council?
Second, Mr. Hamilton says, “There is no basis whatsoever to believe anything other than the Board of Education will be back for a special appropriation of $3.2 million sometime before the end of the school year.” I would suggest that there is no factual basis for such an assertion. Neither Mr. Hamilton nor I can say with certainty what will happen that would mitigate the need to request $3.2 million. How can he assume our final staffing needs when I don’t know them yet and will not until early June? It is certainly possible that we may need fewer staff. How can he assume that our estimates for fuel oil will, or will not, materialize, or that adjustments might not be possible in special education tuition costs, or that health insurance costs may not be as high as budgeted? The fact is he cannot. In the last four years we have been able to return a surplus to the city. Why should we assume that we would not be able to do so in the future? That, of course, is not a certainty. None of this might happen and we might, indeed, need to come for a special appropriation. My point is that the needs of the students ought to be a sufficient reason to take the chance that we can minimize the extent of the increase where a special appropriation might be minimal or, in the best of cases, unneeded. My point is that, in a worse case scenario, we can access the significant unappropriated surplus the city has accumulated without impacting the tax rate which is what the Common Council wanted to do in the first place.
Third, Mr. Hamilton describes the purposes that budgets serve. I understand that. I’ve been building budgets for more than thirty years. I would argue that the budget, the financial plan to meet specific goals, is being used for that exact purpose: meeting specific goals in a fiscally responsible way. Suggesting that we are adopting a fraudulent budget that we intend to exceed is simply untrue. I would note that the city projects a budget it believes is accurate, but then builds in a “contingency” fund, usually in the neighborhood of $2 million dollars, just in case the expenses are higher than anticipated. Does the city engage in a fraudulent practice by budgeting certain appropriations and then adding a contingency, just in case? Of course not. A contingency of a reasonable proportion is a wise practice. The city builds in a contingency between $1.5 and 2 million dollars on anticipated expenses of about $113 to $115 million (the non-Board of Education part of the budget) but does not make any allowances for a contingency on a school budget of $136 - $140 million. Why? Because our “contingency” comes from the action of the Board of Estimate for a special appropriation. My request of the Board of Estimate is, in effect, to create a contingency for the Board of Education by agreeing to honor a request for a special appropriation, to the extent it becomes necessary, in the same way that the city builds in a contingency for city expenses outside of the Board of Education. There is no subterfuge. We are very clear on what may, or may not, be necessary.
Fourth, Mr. Hamilton expresses concern about his future plans given the impact of a potential special appropriation for the Board of Education that could, in his judgment, reach $3.2 million. He says it will impact the level of unappropriated surplus he intends to use over the next two years. In four years time, the unappropriated surplus was permitted to grow from $13 million to $28 million and now, all of a sudden, he has a plan to decrease that unappropriated surplus down to $20 million in two years? How? He is going to use $4 million of it in 2007/2008 and another $3.5 million in 2008/2009. There will be no fund balance used in 2009/2010. This means that in 2009/2010 there will need to be some other offset in revenue, or some reduction in expense, or some increase in the Grand List to offset that loss or the 2009/2010 budget is going to start off with a $3.5 million increase before anyone begins making any budget proposals. I’m not so sure this is the wisest use of fund balance over time.
Fifth, city revenues increased by 12.29% in 2006/2007. In 2007/2008 they are projected to increase by 5.19%. Yet, Mr. Hamilton’s financial projections (used as an argument against creating the opportunity for additional funds for the educational needs of the students) assume that revenues will only increase by 2.4% in 2008/2009 and will actually decrease by 6.66% in 2009/2010 (because there is no fund balance that will be appropriated!). Furthermore, the financial statement provided by Mr. Hamilton indicates that the Grand List increased in 2006/2007 by 14.28% and increasedagain by 11.23% in 2007/2008. However, it will increase by only 1.25% in both 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. What is also interesting to note is that there is no mention of any potential of fund balance from the operating budget in 2008/9 or 2009/2010. Does it not seem odd that in prior years there was a substantial fund balance (that’s why the unappropriated surplus is so high) and now there is no mention of it? Is the city going to spend every last dollar in each of the budget years? Do these numbers make sense?
I also take exception to Mr. Hamilton’s assertion that, “The budget problems that the Board of Education is now facing were [sic] principally the results of relying upon budgetary one-shots (some might refer to them as budget gimmicks) to balance their budget for FY 2006-07.” The judgment in this comment is that it is the Board of Education that is responsible for this problem. The fact is we were prepared to return $2 million to the city at the end of last year but we worked with the Board of Estimate, at its request, to use these funds available on a one-time basis to reduce last year’s increase. Furthermore, I advised the Board of Estimate and the Common Council and the Board of Education in January of last year that using those funds would put us in the exact place we are now. We all agreed to do it. We all walked into this with our eyes open. We supported this decision then and we support it now. But to blame the Board of Education for this situation, when it was not our request or our idea to use those funds, is bordering on the dishonest. We wouldn’t be where we are now if, as planned, we had returned the $2 million and requested the Board of Estimate to increase this year’s budget by 3.99%.
Finally, Mr. Hamilton says that there is a potential solution outside of my proposal. Mr. Hamilton says if the State increases education aid, then the Board of Estimate could make a special appropriation to the Board of Education in the amount of that aid instead of adding it to the city’s surplus. If I am understanding this correctly, it is not wise or honest to provide a special appropriation that would maintain the proposed tax rate and eliminate the need to cut educational programs if that means accessing part of the $28 million in unappropriated surplus that already exists, but it is wise and honest to do so if the State (and nobody knows if this will happen) gives the city additional educational aid which would otherwise add to that unappropriated surplus. Potentially providing a special appropriation from the existing $28 million in unappropriated surplus will be “disastrous” but using additional State Aid that would otherwise go to increase that unappropriated fund balance would not. With all of this, it would still require the Board of Estimate to take an action approving a special appropriation.
One last thought. Our job is to provide the best quality educational program we can to the young people of this city. We make our recommendations for staffing and program based on the experience and expertise we have accumulated over decades of work in schools and school systems. We are producing results. The budgetary increase we are requesting, given last year’s collaboration with the City, is in no way unreasonable. Look around at our neighboring districts and ask if our staffing levels are less or greater than theirs. You will see they are less. Look at our neighboring districts and ask if our budget increases over time are less or greater than theirs. You will see they are less.
I think I offered a reasonable solution to this problem. One where everyone gets what they want. The details can be addressed. If we know there is access to a special appropriation if necessary, we can continue to make sound educational decisions. There is no incentive for us not to be as fiscally responsible as we can. If there is no access, then we will have to make hard choices that, in retrospect we may look back on and say, “This was unnecessary.” The question is to what extent do people want to address this issue and what are they willing to do to work toward a solution. Alternatively, we can do nothing and understand that it will be the kids who pay the price when reductions have to be made. I can assure you, any reduction in service, whether it is administrative, teaching, athletics, or other support, will have an impact on the programs we provide our students and the work we do with and for them.
Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
First, Mr. Hamilton makes this claim because he contends that we would operate our 2007/2008 budget as if we had the additional $3.2 million dollars. Obviously he has chosen to disregard my assertion that we would do all we can to minimize when I said, “Be assured of our firm commitment to continue to pursue every available means to effect savings and to limit staffing to the absolute minimum number necessary. Agree to meet with representatives from the school district, administrators and the Board’s Finance committee, monthly to review our expenditures so you have assurances that we are keeping that commitment.” What would be gained if we chose to ignore this in our efforts to build a collaborative and trusting relationship with the Board of Estimate or the Common Council?
Second, Mr. Hamilton says, “There is no basis whatsoever to believe anything other than the Board of Education will be back for a special appropriation of $3.2 million sometime before the end of the school year.” I would suggest that there is no factual basis for such an assertion. Neither Mr. Hamilton nor I can say with certainty what will happen that would mitigate the need to request $3.2 million. How can he assume our final staffing needs when I don’t know them yet and will not until early June? It is certainly possible that we may need fewer staff. How can he assume that our estimates for fuel oil will, or will not, materialize, or that adjustments might not be possible in special education tuition costs, or that health insurance costs may not be as high as budgeted? The fact is he cannot. In the last four years we have been able to return a surplus to the city. Why should we assume that we would not be able to do so in the future? That, of course, is not a certainty. None of this might happen and we might, indeed, need to come for a special appropriation. My point is that the needs of the students ought to be a sufficient reason to take the chance that we can minimize the extent of the increase where a special appropriation might be minimal or, in the best of cases, unneeded. My point is that, in a worse case scenario, we can access the significant unappropriated surplus the city has accumulated without impacting the tax rate which is what the Common Council wanted to do in the first place.
Third, Mr. Hamilton describes the purposes that budgets serve. I understand that. I’ve been building budgets for more than thirty years. I would argue that the budget, the financial plan to meet specific goals, is being used for that exact purpose: meeting specific goals in a fiscally responsible way. Suggesting that we are adopting a fraudulent budget that we intend to exceed is simply untrue. I would note that the city projects a budget it believes is accurate, but then builds in a “contingency” fund, usually in the neighborhood of $2 million dollars, just in case the expenses are higher than anticipated. Does the city engage in a fraudulent practice by budgeting certain appropriations and then adding a contingency, just in case? Of course not. A contingency of a reasonable proportion is a wise practice. The city builds in a contingency between $1.5 and 2 million dollars on anticipated expenses of about $113 to $115 million (the non-Board of Education part of the budget) but does not make any allowances for a contingency on a school budget of $136 - $140 million. Why? Because our “contingency” comes from the action of the Board of Estimate for a special appropriation. My request of the Board of Estimate is, in effect, to create a contingency for the Board of Education by agreeing to honor a request for a special appropriation, to the extent it becomes necessary, in the same way that the city builds in a contingency for city expenses outside of the Board of Education. There is no subterfuge. We are very clear on what may, or may not, be necessary.
Fourth, Mr. Hamilton expresses concern about his future plans given the impact of a potential special appropriation for the Board of Education that could, in his judgment, reach $3.2 million. He says it will impact the level of unappropriated surplus he intends to use over the next two years. In four years time, the unappropriated surplus was permitted to grow from $13 million to $28 million and now, all of a sudden, he has a plan to decrease that unappropriated surplus down to $20 million in two years? How? He is going to use $4 million of it in 2007/2008 and another $3.5 million in 2008/2009. There will be no fund balance used in 2009/2010. This means that in 2009/2010 there will need to be some other offset in revenue, or some reduction in expense, or some increase in the Grand List to offset that loss or the 2009/2010 budget is going to start off with a $3.5 million increase before anyone begins making any budget proposals. I’m not so sure this is the wisest use of fund balance over time.
Fifth, city revenues increased by 12.29% in 2006/2007. In 2007/2008 they are projected to increase by 5.19%. Yet, Mr. Hamilton’s financial projections (used as an argument against creating the opportunity for additional funds for the educational needs of the students) assume that revenues will only increase by 2.4% in 2008/2009 and will actually decrease by 6.66% in 2009/2010 (because there is no fund balance that will be appropriated!). Furthermore, the financial statement provided by Mr. Hamilton indicates that the Grand List increased in 2006/2007 by 14.28% and increasedagain by 11.23% in 2007/2008. However, it will increase by only 1.25% in both 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. What is also interesting to note is that there is no mention of any potential of fund balance from the operating budget in 2008/9 or 2009/2010. Does it not seem odd that in prior years there was a substantial fund balance (that’s why the unappropriated surplus is so high) and now there is no mention of it? Is the city going to spend every last dollar in each of the budget years? Do these numbers make sense?
I also take exception to Mr. Hamilton’s assertion that, “The budget problems that the Board of Education is now facing were [sic] principally the results of relying upon budgetary one-shots (some might refer to them as budget gimmicks) to balance their budget for FY 2006-07.” The judgment in this comment is that it is the Board of Education that is responsible for this problem. The fact is we were prepared to return $2 million to the city at the end of last year but we worked with the Board of Estimate, at its request, to use these funds available on a one-time basis to reduce last year’s increase. Furthermore, I advised the Board of Estimate and the Common Council and the Board of Education in January of last year that using those funds would put us in the exact place we are now. We all agreed to do it. We all walked into this with our eyes open. We supported this decision then and we support it now. But to blame the Board of Education for this situation, when it was not our request or our idea to use those funds, is bordering on the dishonest. We wouldn’t be where we are now if, as planned, we had returned the $2 million and requested the Board of Estimate to increase this year’s budget by 3.99%.
Finally, Mr. Hamilton says that there is a potential solution outside of my proposal. Mr. Hamilton says if the State increases education aid, then the Board of Estimate could make a special appropriation to the Board of Education in the amount of that aid instead of adding it to the city’s surplus. If I am understanding this correctly, it is not wise or honest to provide a special appropriation that would maintain the proposed tax rate and eliminate the need to cut educational programs if that means accessing part of the $28 million in unappropriated surplus that already exists, but it is wise and honest to do so if the State (and nobody knows if this will happen) gives the city additional educational aid which would otherwise add to that unappropriated surplus. Potentially providing a special appropriation from the existing $28 million in unappropriated surplus will be “disastrous” but using additional State Aid that would otherwise go to increase that unappropriated fund balance would not. With all of this, it would still require the Board of Estimate to take an action approving a special appropriation.
One last thought. Our job is to provide the best quality educational program we can to the young people of this city. We make our recommendations for staffing and program based on the experience and expertise we have accumulated over decades of work in schools and school systems. We are producing results. The budgetary increase we are requesting, given last year’s collaboration with the City, is in no way unreasonable. Look around at our neighboring districts and ask if our staffing levels are less or greater than theirs. You will see they are less. Look at our neighboring districts and ask if our budget increases over time are less or greater than theirs. You will see they are less.
I think I offered a reasonable solution to this problem. One where everyone gets what they want. The details can be addressed. If we know there is access to a special appropriation if necessary, we can continue to make sound educational decisions. There is no incentive for us not to be as fiscally responsible as we can. If there is no access, then we will have to make hard choices that, in retrospect we may look back on and say, “This was unnecessary.” The question is to what extent do people want to address this issue and what are they willing to do to work toward a solution. Alternatively, we can do nothing and understand that it will be the kids who pay the price when reductions have to be made. I can assure you, any reduction in service, whether it is administrative, teaching, athletics, or other support, will have an impact on the programs we provide our students and the work we do with and for them.
Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)