Just seventy-one residents, out of 15,944 registered voters, turned out for Saturday’s Londonderry School District Deliberative Session.
While the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the articles on the school warrant, Moderator Bob Saur said, little of that went on. All articles went to the March 11 secret ballot unchanged.
Article 2, a $4 million bond for renovations and construction, led resident Al Baldasaro to ask about the tax impact on the full amount of the bond over 10 years. The first year impact on a payment of $65,000 was $0.02 per thousand.
School District Business Administrator Peter Curro said the impact would be “$0.15 for two years, $0.14 for two years, $0.13 for two years, and 12 cents so forth and so on” for the 10 years of the note. “The last year it’s $0.12,” Curro said.
Baldasaro asked about the district’s total bond debt, and Curro said it was $16.2 million, well below the limit at $186 million.
School board member John Laferriere said that given the amount of work to be done, the board considered it prudent to bond the projects. “If we don’t bond, we’re fearful we will have to do this year after year, and the impact to the taxpayer will be more significant to the taxpayer than the bond,” he said.
Resident Ray Breslin said he didn’t see any quotes for the work and Curro said that when they begin the process of bonding, they go to experts to determine what each project would cost, then come up with a figure for the bond total.
“If the bond is approved, then we go out to bid,” Curro said.
Breslin brought up the project of redoing the Moose Hill school roof, which is 12 years old, and asked why a new roof would be put on if the building would eventually have a second story.
Curro said there are no plans in the near future to add floors to Moose Hill or to use it as a second middle school.
Article 2 was moved to the ballot.
Superintendent Nathan Greenberg said the proposed 66,240,583 general fund operating budget, Article 3 on the warrant, represents a $179,916 or 0.27 percent increase over the FY 14 budget. “The (proposed) budget would result in an estimated flat tax rate increase of $12.66,” Greenberg said. The default budget is $66,545,528.
Greenberg said a budget is a financial picture of priorities, programs and services that a district is looking to implement or work on.
Baldasaro asked if Common Core funding was in the budget and Greenberg said there was no additional spending for Common Core. “The money that we’re spending is what we normally spend for curriculum revisions, staff development and assessment,” he said.
Baldasaro asked if the tuitioned students who come to Londonderry offset the tax rate and Greenberg said they did.
Resident Tom Duxbury asked about the impact the estimated 450-plus students who could come to Londonderry schools from current developments under construction in the north end of town might have, and Greenberg said this year’s enrollment is 4,553, with a projected enrollment next year of 4,398.
“The issue for us is if those 450 students come in the three- to five-year period, based on the facility studies that we did earlier this year, we could probably accommodate those kids if they came in at the right places,” Greenberg said.
However, Greenberg said if there were an influx of growth at the north end of town, redistricting may be necessary.
Duxbury also asked about year-to-date expenses versus the actual budget, and Curro said they were expecting to come in $850,000 under the approved budget. Greenberg said that money goes back to the taxpayer in the form of a reduced tax rate next year.
With no further discussion, Article 3 was moved unchanged to the ballot.
No discussion took place on Article 4, a collective bargaining agreement with custodians, and resident Maria Newman said the 2.5 percent increase included in Article 5, the support staff contract, was justified. The increase comes in the second and third years of the contract and represents a $0.25 per hour or $0.75 per day increase.
Baldasaro asked why budget committee members voted against the contract, and Budget Committee member Dan Lekas said he considered the 2.5 percent too high.
Budget Committee member Mark Aronson said he thinks the custodians were a professional group and could stay within the rate of inflation, while the support staff was more of a volunteer group and “really make a big difference and deserved a little bit more. Even though the contract was the same, I feel the circumstances are different.”
Resident Marie Parker said she approved of the article, noting it cost less than $20 on a $300,000 house. “It represents a few less coffees,” Parker said.
The article was moved to the ballot.
Article 7, which allows the district to accept federal grants and other money for its School Lunch Program and Federal Fund Projects, and is listed as having no tax impact, resulted in a comment from Baldasaro that there was a cost to the taxpayer, as it was taxpayer dollars paid to the federal government that were being returned through grants and subsidies. “This is a no-brainer to approve the article because it is our money coming back to us,” he said.
The article was moved to the warrant.
Article 8, which would raise and appropriate $500,000 for the School Buildings Maintenance Expendable Trust Fund, with an estimated tax impact of $0.14, led Baldasaro to ask if the money could instead be taken from overages returned to the taxpayer.
Curro said $75,000 remains in the unreserved balance account. “The town has somewhere around $2 million,” he explained. “So when they take money from surplus, they already have the money. We don’t.”
The article was moved to the ballot.
Article 9, which would raise and appropriate $100,000 for the School District Equipment Capital Reserve Fund, with an estimated tax impact of $0.03, prompted Duxbury to say those costs belong in the operating budget and not as a separate article.
Curro said this is a special revenue fund and what was not spent was retained.