1. We introduced a top-down approach for
determining what we considered to be reasonable budget spending increases for current services. The approach is based on allowing
a cost of living increase, spending 80% of new revenue from Grand List growth, and requiring a 0.5% improvement in efficiency.
Based on that approach, recommendations have been made to endorse or reject 17 proposed
budgets since our formation in 1998. All but two of our recommendations have been supported
at referenda indicating that voters generally endorse our approach. Put another way, no budget has passed
since 1998 without the endorsement of our group.
2. As a result, budgets rejected by voters have been reduced
by a total of $3 million since 1998.
3. The total spending reduction of
$3 million means that the current mill rate is about 5.2 mills less than it otherwise would have been.
As a result, a taxpayer with an assessment of $150,000 is now saving
about $775 per year. Since 1998, this same taxpayer has been saved a total of about $3,400.
4.
Assuming money saved in 1 year continues to be saved in following
years, a total of about $12.6 million in spending has been saved since 1998.
5. In 1999, our tough stand resulted in the first zero tax increase budget in 15 years.
That forced consolidation of the Town and Education financial positions to finally occur after many years of delay. Consolidation
saves roughly $70,000 each year - a total of $490,000 since 1999.
6. BOE initial spending requests are now more realistic,
being reduced from a nominal 7.5% to a nominal 5.5%. We believe this is still too high.
7. In 1998, our lobbying efforts
played a significant role in the reformulation of the Town Purchasing Ordinance. In 1999 and in 2003 we lobbied for bidding
of the bus contract but were unsuccessful.
8. In 2000, we were instrumental in getting the Board of Education to form
a temporary subcommittee on Special Education costs. Nothing has come from it. We note that the budget now tracks how much
is being spent on tuition for pupils out-placed at private facilities. We believe private facilities cost more.
9. We surveyed candidates for town offices in 1999 and 2001 and recommended a bipartisan slates of candidates.
90% were elected in 1999; 70% in 2001. Despite this, officials (once elected) seem reluctant to make a policy change to adopt
a top down budget approach. We took no survey in 2003. Most of our endorsed candidates in 2003 were NOT elected. We have discontinued
endorsing candidates.
10. We were able to get the BOE to eliminate excessive and inappropriate use of executive sessions.
11. In 2000 we supported more Capital money for roads and Lake Remediation. As a result, the Lake has been treated
and an additional $150,000 per year for roads was authorized. Progress in road
repair remains slow and we are pressing for documented public reports on meeting commitments made at the time we supported
the spending increase.
12. We provided input to the teacher contract negotiations in 1999 and 2002. However, we had
little impact except perhaps to prompt letters from the BOE and Council to the State on the inadequacies of the Binding Arbitration
law.
13. In 2004 we supported a budget that provided large spending increases (roughly $600,000) for non-education
components of the budget so as to bring our tax effort in these areas close to the average of similar-size towns. In
2005 we supported a budget that provided $250,000 to education to maintain a commitment of education tax effort equal
to at least 110% of the ERGD average. The rapid growth of the town may make it difficult to keep this commitment in the future.
14. In 2004 we supported the Chatham Roundtables effort and are hopeful that the resulting dialog will at long last accomplish
some of the budget policy changes we have been advocating. Regrettably, no such result occurred and we did not participate
in the 2005 Roundtables.
15. As a result of our activities, the percent of budgets rejected
has roughly tripled and (most importantly) the number of taxpayers voting at referenda has roughly doubled.
(After all, the bottom line is voter participation regardless of what they decide.)
