CCS Board Finalizes $6.9 Million Budget,
By Rowan Beck,
February 9, 2012, p.8.....

CCS Board Finalizes $6.9 Million Budget
by Rowan Beck

The final FY13 budget meeting and public hearing for Charlotte Central School was January 24. After presenting the budget and listening to comments by the public, the board passed a proposed fiscal year 2012-2013 (FY2013) budget of $6,945,915, which is a 3.05% increase over the current year. However, revenues are also expected to increase, so the expected net education spending is $6,057,722, an increase of less than one percent over the current year. The estimated homestead education tax rate would be $0.9361, an increase of 2.08% over thecurrent year.

Budget Summary
CCS Budget to be voted at
Town Meeting $ 6,945,915 (3.05% increase)

CCS Revenues $888,193 (22.84% increase)

Net Education Spending $6,057,722 (0.66% increase)

# of Equalized Pupils 432.48 (1.5% decrease)

Spending/Equalized Pupil $14,006 (2.08% increase)

Less than ten Charlotte residents turned out for the hearing. Before the vote, School Board Chair Lynne Jaunich gave a brief overview of the past four months of the budget process. One of her key points was the school budget is only one of the five factors that drive the property taxes (see more information at the end of this article). She also pointed out three “significant budget drivers: special education, 504 plans and the math coordinator position that was previously grant funded.” The first two factors are required by law.

Significant Budget Drivers
Special Education* $ 79,640 504 plans* $ 60,381 Math Coordinator** $ 54,077

$194,098 (Equates to 90% of FY13 budget increase)

*Required to provide by law
**Previously grant funded

The need for a math coordinator position was questioned by some of the parents in the audience. Jaunich responded, “For the last ten years we’ve had one, but the role has changed.” Co-principals Greg Marino and Audrey Boutaugh explained how the math coordinator supports teachers in Bridges, the new math program, and with the new core curriculum that needs to be in place by 2014. Marino said the position is in the school’s action plan, and we “see this position as a bridge for teachers while developing a more internal structure.”
The need for a paraeducator in the library was also discussed. Marino and Boutaugh felt strongly that there would be a serious impact on the students if the paraeducator were removed. They had spoken with librarian Heidi Huestis and reviewed her daily schedule. Without a paraeducator, the library would have to be closed when she works in another classroom. Having a paraeducator provides other students within the school an opportunity to use the library and for teachers to take their students to the library when the librarian is not there. Marino added that, if the board wished to look at it, Huestis regularly posts and updates her schedule.
Michael Krasnow again brought up the fees for outside groups to use the school facilities. He wanted to know if the fee would be waived for the multi-age coed pickup basketball open gym that takes place at the school twice each week. The board said this would be a topic for discussion in February, but no decision could be made before the budget is presented to the town in March. Sue Thibault said, “This is about policy. The board creates the policy, and then we look to the administration to enforce it.” Revenues of $10,000 have been put in the budget for anticipated usage fees for FY2013, the same amount as in the current budget.
Jaunich stated that she was “not opposed to the increase (in the budget) as long as it could be justified and we continue to flag programs that are not aiding in the best possible outcome for our students. It has to be all about the kids. I don’t want to do things just because they have always been done that way.” Edorah Frazer agreed, saying, “Let’s question the status quo; it can only bring good things.”
Clyde Baldwin was the only board member who voted against the proposed budget. In earlier meetings he had spoken out about programming cuts affecting the students. The proposed budget eliminates 1.0 classroom teacher, 0.2 guidance counselor, 0.2 Spanish teacher, 0.15 art teacher and 0.1 physical education teacher. There are also savings expected associated with upcoming retirements.
Throughout the budget process, the board wrestled with the knowledge that it could not keep the budget flat or continue to decrease it without impacting the students and programming. Clyde Baldwin said at the January 14 meeting, “You can’t keep nibbling away, and there comes a time when you have to say stop.” He continued to echo those same sentiments at this meeting. Over the years nine classrooms have been lost, and enrollment continues to decline. Next year the incoming kindergarten class is estimated at 35, compared to 40 students this year. Plus, according to Boutaugh, nine students are leaving. Board members agreed that it needs to think outside the box in years to come.
A public hearing for the FY 2013 school budget will be held Monday, March 5, at 7 p.m. in the multipurpose room at CCS. Documents and presentations associated with the budget can be seen online at ccsvt.org, click on Board, then on Board in the drop-down menu.

Additional information about the five drivers of the education property tax
Jaunich pointed out the five factors that are drivers of the education property tax. The school budget is one of the factors; the others are the CLA (common level of appraisal), the state education tax rates, the base education amount and enrollment.
The CLA is the state’s estimate of how close a town’s property appraisals are to actual fair market value. This year’s CLA for Charlotte has been set at 1.0137, which indicates that Charlotte’s appraisals, in the aggregate, are assessed at 101.37% of fair market value. The statewide homestead tax rate is divided by the CLA to arrive at a base rate for Charlotte residential property taxes.
The statewide education tax rates have not been officially set by the Legislature for this year, but the homestead rate is expected to be $0.89 (a 2-cent increase over the current year rate). This rate would provide an estimated base education amount of $8,723 per student to the school, an increase of 2.09% over the current year (again, not yet set by the Legislature). However, since the projected spending per equalized pupil for FY13 is $14,006, the base tax rate would be increased proportionately, bringing it up to the projected $0.9361 for CCS. Similar calculations are used to arrive at the tax rate for CVU.
Enrollment is the fifth driver of the tax rate. Current enrollment at CCS is 451 students, which is projected to decrease to 442 next year. This includes 20 students in the EEE (Essential Early Education) preschool program. The equalized student count (432.48) used to calculate the tax rate is arrived at by a formula that takes the EEE students into account.
CCS has experienced a steady decrease in enrollment over the last decade. In 2000 there were more than 540 students at the school. The board displayed a chart at the meeting that showed a projected continuing decline to 400 in 2016.