TC 04/27/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/73055.pdf
SC 04/28/09 - Executive Session:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4248/2009/72958.pdf
Tax Assessment Review 04/28/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4236/2009/73101.pdf
Next week - Zoning, May 6th:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4234/2009/72770.pdf
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Proposed Board/Commission Appointment Procedure
Sorry, I do not favor this ordinance as proposed. It gives too much power/control to the chairs of the local Democrat and Republican parties. There is no provision for any resident, whether they are a D, R or unaffiliated to directly submit their name to the town for committee positions. If a resident is a member of a certain party and is not on good terms with that party's chair then the resident would have a slim chance of being nominated for a board position. The ordinance calls for representation on these boards by both major parties but is silent on how independents are to be represented. I fear that many qualified residents who are unaffiliated, who would like to serve or are presently serving on town committees will not want to go through the party chairs as part of this new application process. If the TC insists on passing this new ordinance, I hope they will at least include some provision for direct submission of applications from the public and also state the extent to which unaffiliated residents will be represented on boards.
Council revisits repealed dictate
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
HANNAH CLARKIN
COVENTRY — An ordinance to maintain bi-partisan membership on town-council appointed bodies provoked a lengthy discussion at the Monday night council meeting.
The ordinance, drafted by Town Solicitor Patrick Rogers at the request of the council, requires that minority parties in the town be represented on every town body over which the council has authority. The boards would not be repopulated upon the passage of the ordinance, it stipulates. Rather, as openings come up, the council will request a list of three names from the chair of the majority and minority parties in the town. One minority party would be required on a body with three members; two out of a membership of five; three out of a membership of seven; four out of a membership of nine; and so on, the draft of the ordinance reads.Residents interested in serving on one of these bodies would submit their applications to the chairpersons of the majority and minority committees, who would then provide the council with a list of three names for each open position.
This proposal would restore an ordinance that was repealed within the last decade, Rogers said at the meeting. The intent of the ordinance, Rogers said, “is to insure that there is representation of all views, especially the minority party,” and speaking to the current minority, he added, “The shoe could be on the other foot.”Whatever majority is on the council will be automatically reflected in the makeup of these bodies, if this ordinance is approved, according to Council Vice-President Raymond Spear. There was a reason that this ordinance was repealed in the past, Councilman Frank Hyde, said during council discussion, indicating that he did not think restoring this ordinance was necessary. This ordinance would make it very difficult for independent or unaffiliated residents to find a place on town committees, commented resident Wayne Asselin. He likes the easy access of the current process, Asselin said, where anyone in the community can submit an application to the council and be interviewed.
As the ordinance was written on Monday, the minority and majority party chairs would be the “funnel” through which all applicants would go, Rogers said. If the council so desired, he can rewrite it to represent a third-way for independents and unaffiliated applicants to get appointments without going to a party chair.The council voted 3-1 to pass the ordinance on its first reading; Hyde dissented.While they did pass the first reading, Rogers expects that the ordinance will be reworked before it reaches its second reading and will have to be advertised again.“The town council is committed to bi-partisanship and balance on all of the town of Coventry Boards and commissions and very much wants to include independents and all non affiliated voters on boards and commissions,” Rogers said. What the draft presented on Monday does not specifically provide is an easy mechanism for independents and non-affiliated to apply for these positions, Rogers said. “While they did a first passage on Monday, the council wants to see some substantial changes to accomplish the goals that I just outlined. We’re going to have to go back to the drawing board to accomplish that goal so when it comes before the council next time it will be a substantially new draft.”
There are currently 22 unfilled positions on town bodies, said Council Vice-Chair Raymond Spear on Monday night. Not all the bodies currently represent both majority and minority parties, he added.Coming up with 66 names each is a tall order, said Republican Committee Chair Charles Vacca and Democratic Party Chair Rick Kalunian, respectively. If the council wants to fill all those positions immediately after an ordinance is passed, Vacca and Kalunian will be responsible for coming up with 132 names.
Council revisits repealed dictate
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
HANNAH CLARKIN
COVENTRY — An ordinance to maintain bi-partisan membership on town-council appointed bodies provoked a lengthy discussion at the Monday night council meeting.
The ordinance, drafted by Town Solicitor Patrick Rogers at the request of the council, requires that minority parties in the town be represented on every town body over which the council has authority. The boards would not be repopulated upon the passage of the ordinance, it stipulates. Rather, as openings come up, the council will request a list of three names from the chair of the majority and minority parties in the town. One minority party would be required on a body with three members; two out of a membership of five; three out of a membership of seven; four out of a membership of nine; and so on, the draft of the ordinance reads.Residents interested in serving on one of these bodies would submit their applications to the chairpersons of the majority and minority committees, who would then provide the council with a list of three names for each open position.
This proposal would restore an ordinance that was repealed within the last decade, Rogers said at the meeting. The intent of the ordinance, Rogers said, “is to insure that there is representation of all views, especially the minority party,” and speaking to the current minority, he added, “The shoe could be on the other foot.”Whatever majority is on the council will be automatically reflected in the makeup of these bodies, if this ordinance is approved, according to Council Vice-President Raymond Spear. There was a reason that this ordinance was repealed in the past, Councilman Frank Hyde, said during council discussion, indicating that he did not think restoring this ordinance was necessary. This ordinance would make it very difficult for independent or unaffiliated residents to find a place on town committees, commented resident Wayne Asselin. He likes the easy access of the current process, Asselin said, where anyone in the community can submit an application to the council and be interviewed.
As the ordinance was written on Monday, the minority and majority party chairs would be the “funnel” through which all applicants would go, Rogers said. If the council so desired, he can rewrite it to represent a third-way for independents and unaffiliated applicants to get appointments without going to a party chair.The council voted 3-1 to pass the ordinance on its first reading; Hyde dissented.While they did pass the first reading, Rogers expects that the ordinance will be reworked before it reaches its second reading and will have to be advertised again.“The town council is committed to bi-partisanship and balance on all of the town of Coventry Boards and commissions and very much wants to include independents and all non affiliated voters on boards and commissions,” Rogers said. What the draft presented on Monday does not specifically provide is an easy mechanism for independents and non-affiliated to apply for these positions, Rogers said. “While they did a first passage on Monday, the council wants to see some substantial changes to accomplish the goals that I just outlined. We’re going to have to go back to the drawing board to accomplish that goal so when it comes before the council next time it will be a substantially new draft.”
There are currently 22 unfilled positions on town bodies, said Council Vice-Chair Raymond Spear on Monday night. Not all the bodies currently represent both majority and minority parties, he added.Coming up with 66 names each is a tall order, said Republican Committee Chair Charles Vacca and Democratic Party Chair Rick Kalunian, respectively. If the council wants to fill all those positions immediately after an ordinance is passed, Vacca and Kalunian will be responsible for coming up with 132 names.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thoughts on the Town Budget
Here are some ideas on the town budget by Town Council member Laura Flanagan. If anyone has ideas on how the town can save $$ please attend the public hearings on the municipal budget Wednesday 4/15 and the school budget Thurs. 4/16 and share them.
It is important for the taxpayers of Coventry to be educated and informed as to the finances of their town. I have long felt that our tax burden was too high and the underlying reasons for this burden were not being discussed with or disclosed to the community. Year after year, we have borne large increases, bringing us to a crossroad, the place we are today. I would submit to you that our community can no longer sustain such increases. During my campaign, and today, I was and remain committed to addressing the tax burden with conservative, fiscally sound decisions. I believe that my fellow council members are committed to this end, as well. The newly elected members of the Council share a love of Coventry and a desire to advocate for the taxpayers of the community. Further, they possess the tools, breadth of background, wisdom and knowledge necessary to take on the task before us.
It goes without saying, our national economy is in the midst of a difficult, long lasting recession that we have yet to see a clear way out of. “Why?” and “How?” many ask, did this occur. I would like to offer a brief, yet poignant answer, to this large question. As individuals, and as a society, we have lived well beyond our means for far too long. Today, we are brought the reality that we can no longer do so. As Rhode Islanders, we are all very much aware of the added stress this recession places on our own State’s economy, with unemployment and foreclosure rates at a height most of us have not seen in our lifetimes, and a State deficit that is staggering.
Here in Coventry, we are in the midst of the 2009/2010 budget cycle. Taxpayers will hear many things from many different special interests groups who are struggling to maintain the “status quo”. Some will say that this new council is being “dramatic” or that we are “alarmists”. Some will say that we have misrepresented the revenues and expenditures of our town to the public. Many groups will say that their departments are too important or too essential to take one dime less than they received last year. Some will say that it just isn’t fair. The truth of the matter is simple…. We must change the way local government operates in Coventry. We cannot continue down the same path, because we can no longer afford “business as usual”. By human nature, people are generally afraid of change. Comfort is found in the normal routines we have grown accustomed to. Even still, it is true that hard times and drastic measures can bring folks together, to brainstorm and think outside the box, resulting in a positive plan to move forward. We, as a community, should embrace the financial position we find ourselves in and allow it to move us in a positive direction, creating efficiency and using our innovation to become a better, wiser and more thoughtful community. It is clearly time to move Coventry in a new direction.
Our financial problems will not go away by hiding from them, masking them, creating paper numbers that are more attractive or by any other tool of avoidance. Positive change only comes when we stand willing to face and address problems squarely.
So, here is the challenge….
As a council, we received a proposed budget that called for approximately $5,500,000 in new money. This figure is arrived at for a number of reasons.
1) Governor Carcieri, and our state representatives, have indicated that there will be no state aid to towns and cities in fiscal year 2009/2010. This results in $847,000 in lost State Aid and Grants for Coventry.
2) The phase-out of excise automobile tax resulted in an additional loss of revenue to Coventry of approximately $500,000.
3) There have been declines in general Town revenues in the approximate amount of $598,000. These declines relate, in large part, to local economic conditions, consisting of reductions in land evidence recordings, building permits, licensing fees, interest on investments, among other things.
4) An additional structural deficit was created by the prior council through its use of $653,606 from the Town’s reserve fund to meet expenses in the 2008/2009 fiscal year.
These items, when aggregated, represent an approximate $2,600,000 deficit before new requests from the school or other departments are considered. The school has requested approximately $1,900,000 and municipal departments have requested approximately $1,000,000. $2,600,000 (deficit) plus $1,900,000 (requested from schools) plus $1,000,000 (requested by municipal departments) equals $5,500,000.
Senate Bill 3050 places a cap on the amount a municipality can raise in revenue from taxes. This year, the limit is 4.75% of last year’s levy, or approximately $2,807,610. (For budgeting purposes, we estimate a 98% rate of collection during the fiscal year, or $2,751,457.) It is important to note that the auto excise tax loss of $500,000 is added back, bringing the total maximum allowable increase on taxpayers to approximately $3,307,610, or an average 6% increase to property owners.
In simple terms, if the Council were inclined to raise taxes to the maximum amount, it would still lack over $2,000,000. ($5,500,000 (need) minus $3,300,000 in new, collected taxes equals $2,200,000).
I submit to you that a full increase on the taxpayers of Coventry is unacceptable. Folks in our community are struggling, some out of work, some with reduced hours, some facing foreclosures. Businesses are struggling as well, with a number being forced to close their doors. Our real estate market is seeing very little movement or growth, and there is an approximate 91 pupil decline in enrollment in our schools.
I would also suggest that taking from our reserve account to plug this whole is not a wise, or responsible, option. Our $5,000,000 reserve account is more than offset by debt primarily loaned out to the Sewer Enterprise Fund of approximately $5,500,000 in the form of tax anticipation notes. As you will note, this liability is larger than our cash reserves! If we dip into this fund, we can be fairly certain of a number of negative consequences:
1) We could face a significant increase in the interest rate on our debt (it currently stands at 5% but could increase to the maximum amount allowed under state law);
2) We would decrease our credit worthiness (our bond rating). A decrease here would make it costly to bond necessary projects in the future, and may even preclude us from issuing bonds, when appropriate.
3) We would create an additional structural deficit for the FY 2010-2011, only pushing today’s problems off to tomorrow. We cannot go into the next fiscal year creating deficit of over $2,000,000 before we are even out of the gate.
If our desire is to create a local economy that attracts young families and businesses to move into our community, we must work diligently to lower our tax burden. Lower taxes stimulate growth. Lower taxes give residents more money to put into their local economy. Lower taxes attract businesses that can further stimulate growth.
We simply must decrease our expenses and live within our means. This is certainly a large challenge and this Council has given our department heads a tough, but attainable, job to do. With the right attitude and by coming together as a community, I believe we can accomplish this task. If we do so, Coventry will indeed be better for it in the future.
Laura A. Flanagan
Councilwoman – District 2
Coventry
It is important for the taxpayers of Coventry to be educated and informed as to the finances of their town. I have long felt that our tax burden was too high and the underlying reasons for this burden were not being discussed with or disclosed to the community. Year after year, we have borne large increases, bringing us to a crossroad, the place we are today. I would submit to you that our community can no longer sustain such increases. During my campaign, and today, I was and remain committed to addressing the tax burden with conservative, fiscally sound decisions. I believe that my fellow council members are committed to this end, as well. The newly elected members of the Council share a love of Coventry and a desire to advocate for the taxpayers of the community. Further, they possess the tools, breadth of background, wisdom and knowledge necessary to take on the task before us.
It goes without saying, our national economy is in the midst of a difficult, long lasting recession that we have yet to see a clear way out of. “Why?” and “How?” many ask, did this occur. I would like to offer a brief, yet poignant answer, to this large question. As individuals, and as a society, we have lived well beyond our means for far too long. Today, we are brought the reality that we can no longer do so. As Rhode Islanders, we are all very much aware of the added stress this recession places on our own State’s economy, with unemployment and foreclosure rates at a height most of us have not seen in our lifetimes, and a State deficit that is staggering.
Here in Coventry, we are in the midst of the 2009/2010 budget cycle. Taxpayers will hear many things from many different special interests groups who are struggling to maintain the “status quo”. Some will say that this new council is being “dramatic” or that we are “alarmists”. Some will say that we have misrepresented the revenues and expenditures of our town to the public. Many groups will say that their departments are too important or too essential to take one dime less than they received last year. Some will say that it just isn’t fair. The truth of the matter is simple…. We must change the way local government operates in Coventry. We cannot continue down the same path, because we can no longer afford “business as usual”. By human nature, people are generally afraid of change. Comfort is found in the normal routines we have grown accustomed to. Even still, it is true that hard times and drastic measures can bring folks together, to brainstorm and think outside the box, resulting in a positive plan to move forward. We, as a community, should embrace the financial position we find ourselves in and allow it to move us in a positive direction, creating efficiency and using our innovation to become a better, wiser and more thoughtful community. It is clearly time to move Coventry in a new direction.
Our financial problems will not go away by hiding from them, masking them, creating paper numbers that are more attractive or by any other tool of avoidance. Positive change only comes when we stand willing to face and address problems squarely.
So, here is the challenge….
As a council, we received a proposed budget that called for approximately $5,500,000 in new money. This figure is arrived at for a number of reasons.
1) Governor Carcieri, and our state representatives, have indicated that there will be no state aid to towns and cities in fiscal year 2009/2010. This results in $847,000 in lost State Aid and Grants for Coventry.
2) The phase-out of excise automobile tax resulted in an additional loss of revenue to Coventry of approximately $500,000.
3) There have been declines in general Town revenues in the approximate amount of $598,000. These declines relate, in large part, to local economic conditions, consisting of reductions in land evidence recordings, building permits, licensing fees, interest on investments, among other things.
4) An additional structural deficit was created by the prior council through its use of $653,606 from the Town’s reserve fund to meet expenses in the 2008/2009 fiscal year.
These items, when aggregated, represent an approximate $2,600,000 deficit before new requests from the school or other departments are considered. The school has requested approximately $1,900,000 and municipal departments have requested approximately $1,000,000. $2,600,000 (deficit) plus $1,900,000 (requested from schools) plus $1,000,000 (requested by municipal departments) equals $5,500,000.
Senate Bill 3050 places a cap on the amount a municipality can raise in revenue from taxes. This year, the limit is 4.75% of last year’s levy, or approximately $2,807,610. (For budgeting purposes, we estimate a 98% rate of collection during the fiscal year, or $2,751,457.) It is important to note that the auto excise tax loss of $500,000 is added back, bringing the total maximum allowable increase on taxpayers to approximately $3,307,610, or an average 6% increase to property owners.
In simple terms, if the Council were inclined to raise taxes to the maximum amount, it would still lack over $2,000,000. ($5,500,000 (need) minus $3,300,000 in new, collected taxes equals $2,200,000).
I submit to you that a full increase on the taxpayers of Coventry is unacceptable. Folks in our community are struggling, some out of work, some with reduced hours, some facing foreclosures. Businesses are struggling as well, with a number being forced to close their doors. Our real estate market is seeing very little movement or growth, and there is an approximate 91 pupil decline in enrollment in our schools.
I would also suggest that taking from our reserve account to plug this whole is not a wise, or responsible, option. Our $5,000,000 reserve account is more than offset by debt primarily loaned out to the Sewer Enterprise Fund of approximately $5,500,000 in the form of tax anticipation notes. As you will note, this liability is larger than our cash reserves! If we dip into this fund, we can be fairly certain of a number of negative consequences:
1) We could face a significant increase in the interest rate on our debt (it currently stands at 5% but could increase to the maximum amount allowed under state law);
2) We would decrease our credit worthiness (our bond rating). A decrease here would make it costly to bond necessary projects in the future, and may even preclude us from issuing bonds, when appropriate.
3) We would create an additional structural deficit for the FY 2010-2011, only pushing today’s problems off to tomorrow. We cannot go into the next fiscal year creating deficit of over $2,000,000 before we are even out of the gate.
If our desire is to create a local economy that attracts young families and businesses to move into our community, we must work diligently to lower our tax burden. Lower taxes stimulate growth. Lower taxes give residents more money to put into their local economy. Lower taxes attract businesses that can further stimulate growth.
We simply must decrease our expenses and live within our means. This is certainly a large challenge and this Council has given our department heads a tough, but attainable, job to do. With the right attitude and by coming together as a community, I believe we can accomplish this task. If we do so, Coventry will indeed be better for it in the future.
Laura A. Flanagan
Councilwoman – District 2
Coventry
Friday, April 10, 2009
Meetings next week
Town Council 4/13/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/72411.pdf
School Committee 4/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4248/2009/72325.pdf
Conservation Commission 04/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4239/2009/72088.pdf
Tax Assessment Review Board 04/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4236/2009/72441.pdf
Housing Authority 4/15/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4242/2009/72425.pdf
I think there are public budget hearings on 4/15 and 4/16 but need to confirm.
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/72411.pdf
School Committee 4/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4248/2009/72325.pdf
Conservation Commission 04/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4239/2009/72088.pdf
Tax Assessment Review Board 04/14/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4236/2009/72441.pdf
Housing Authority 4/15/09:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4242/2009/72425.pdf
I think there are public budget hearings on 4/15 and 4/16 but need to confirm.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Yes, Please Re-work the Budget
Cov. council must rework budget
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
HANNAH CLARKIN
hclarkin@ricentral.com
COVENTRY — The Coventry Town Council called for a complete reworking of the budget prepared by acting Town Manager Paul Sprague at their first work session with department heads on Monday night.
The council was under the impression that Sprague’s municipal and school budget required $3 million in new money, Council Vice-President Raymond Spear said. Upon reviewing the budget in more detail they learned that the proposed budget would require a number closer to $5.5 million to accomplish everything Sprague outlined. Roughly $2.5 million will be required next year, Spear said, just to compensate for losses in state aid, fees and the automotive car tax, among other things. “So there’s $2.5 million that we were not aware of.”Every department head was asked to go back and re-evaluate their needs for the coming fiscal year, Spear said. “We told them that if we level-funded the budget for next year that at the level that they’re spending this year we would still need to have the full maximum levy just to meet the lost revenue to the town.”
In an effort to avoid raising taxes to the full amount, Spear asked department heads to come up with budgets that are 10 percent lower than this year’s levels, he said. Sprague’s budget was balanced by drawing money out of the reserve fund, Spear said. However, because of loans made to the Coventry Sewer Project, most of the $5 million reserve is still loaned out and has not been paid back. The council has asked for revised budgets from department heads within the week, Spear said. “We asked them to tell [Sprague] to what extent they can [work with] a 10 percent decrease and then give us all the rationale for the maximum amount that they need.”The position the town is in is “drastic,” Spear said. “It may mean some loss of jobs. I don’t know, we’d like to hope not.”
At $22,943,415 on the municipal side, Sprague’s budget anticipated a full 4.75 increase in the tax levy, which would equal a 6 percent raise in taxes for residents, Spear said. The council is committed to moving forward with no tax increase for the next fiscal year, Spear said. “We thought level-funding budgets would do it; we have now learned that it won’t; now we have to look at budget cutbacks as a way to get the budget down. We are still shooting for no tax increase but we’re not sure what we can get.”
The meeting with municipal department heads was only the first of several work sessions before the budget is presented at a public hearing for residents of the town Spear said.The council will be meeting again tonight with the school committee and Superintendent Kenneth DiPietro to discuss the school budget, Spear said. In Sprague’s budget the schools were allotted $64,870,966, but that amount is not likely to be feasible this year, Spear said. “I have talked to [DiPietro] and told him that we cannot allow any increase in the budgets for next year,” Spear said. Because of maintenance of effort, the council cannot allot any less to the school department then they did last fiscal year, Spear said, but town legal council will be researching the specifics of that requirement.
The work session with the school committee is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the town council chambers at the Coventry town hall, Spear said. The public is welcome to attend.
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
HANNAH CLARKIN
hclarkin@ricentral.com
COVENTRY — The Coventry Town Council called for a complete reworking of the budget prepared by acting Town Manager Paul Sprague at their first work session with department heads on Monday night.
The council was under the impression that Sprague’s municipal and school budget required $3 million in new money, Council Vice-President Raymond Spear said. Upon reviewing the budget in more detail they learned that the proposed budget would require a number closer to $5.5 million to accomplish everything Sprague outlined. Roughly $2.5 million will be required next year, Spear said, just to compensate for losses in state aid, fees and the automotive car tax, among other things. “So there’s $2.5 million that we were not aware of.”Every department head was asked to go back and re-evaluate their needs for the coming fiscal year, Spear said. “We told them that if we level-funded the budget for next year that at the level that they’re spending this year we would still need to have the full maximum levy just to meet the lost revenue to the town.”
In an effort to avoid raising taxes to the full amount, Spear asked department heads to come up with budgets that are 10 percent lower than this year’s levels, he said. Sprague’s budget was balanced by drawing money out of the reserve fund, Spear said. However, because of loans made to the Coventry Sewer Project, most of the $5 million reserve is still loaned out and has not been paid back. The council has asked for revised budgets from department heads within the week, Spear said. “We asked them to tell [Sprague] to what extent they can [work with] a 10 percent decrease and then give us all the rationale for the maximum amount that they need.”The position the town is in is “drastic,” Spear said. “It may mean some loss of jobs. I don’t know, we’d like to hope not.”
At $22,943,415 on the municipal side, Sprague’s budget anticipated a full 4.75 increase in the tax levy, which would equal a 6 percent raise in taxes for residents, Spear said. The council is committed to moving forward with no tax increase for the next fiscal year, Spear said. “We thought level-funding budgets would do it; we have now learned that it won’t; now we have to look at budget cutbacks as a way to get the budget down. We are still shooting for no tax increase but we’re not sure what we can get.”
The meeting with municipal department heads was only the first of several work sessions before the budget is presented at a public hearing for residents of the town Spear said.The council will be meeting again tonight with the school committee and Superintendent Kenneth DiPietro to discuss the school budget, Spear said. In Sprague’s budget the schools were allotted $64,870,966, but that amount is not likely to be feasible this year, Spear said. “I have talked to [DiPietro] and told him that we cannot allow any increase in the budgets for next year,” Spear said. Because of maintenance of effort, the council cannot allot any less to the school department then they did last fiscal year, Spear said, but town legal council will be researching the specifics of that requirement.
The work session with the school committee is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the town council chambers at the Coventry town hall, Spear said. The public is welcome to attend.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Upcoming Meetings
Town Council 4/6. Work session on municipal budget:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/71933.pdf
Board of Tax Assessment Review 4/7:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4236/2009/72055.pdf
Town Council 4/8. Work session on school budget:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/71934.pdf
Zoning Board 4/8 at Town Hall Annex:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4234/2009/71532.pdf
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4234/2009/71718.pdf
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/71933.pdf
Board of Tax Assessment Review 4/7:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4236/2009/72055.pdf
Town Council 4/8. Work session on school budget:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4232/2009/71934.pdf
Zoning Board 4/8 at Town Hall Annex:
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4234/2009/71532.pdf
http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffiles/notices/4234/2009/71718.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)