WHS BudCom: Vote 'Yes' on Budget, HVAC, but 'No' on Tech Fund

By Fred Caesar

Chairman, WHS Budget Committee

To The Editor:

            I would like to take this opportunity to provide some insight into the proposed Winnacunnet High School 2013/14 budget and the related warrant articles that voters will face  on March 12, from the perspective of the Winnacunnet HS Budget Committee.

            The proposed budget, as amended at the deliberative session, is $22,579,203, roughly $12,611 more than the default budget. Prior to the deliberative session, the proposed budget was actually $59,363 under the default, but due to the impassioned pleas of a few students at the session, $80,000 in funding was restored for the adult education and NH Jobs America Graduates programs. Prior to these adjustments, the budget broke down as follows:

• Salaries – 48%
• Benefits – 21%
• Debt Service (interest and principle) – 8%
• Buildings and Grounds – 4%
• SAU Assessment – 2.5%

            All in all a reasonable budget, worthy of your support.

            Two of the warrant articles however require closer examination. Warrant Article 2 calls for an appropriation of $105,000 for the completion of phase 1 of an HVAC replacement project. This amount, when added to the $40,000 appropriated last year will provide sufficient funding to replace 4 rooftop units. This project was grossly underestimated by the administration last year, who thought only $40,000 was needed to cover the replacement of 3-4 units. In addition, it has been revealed that there are a total of 55 of these units in use and the the administration's current plan is to replace these units between now and 2025, at a total cost (in today's dollars) of just over $1.5 million. It is the opinion of the Budget Committee that this replacement project proceed, but in the future this should be handled as a maintenance and repair budget line item, and not as a warrant article. This opinion has been conveyed to the WHS School Board and the administration. This will be a significant expense going forward but has been proposed as necessary maintenance and upkeep. Please vote yes on Article 2.

            Warrant Article 5 calls for the establishment of another trust fund, referred to as the “Technology Fund”, calling for an appropriation of up to $90,000. The Budget Committee does not support this article for two reasons: First, the other trust funds that have been established (the School Building Maintenance and Special Education Expendable Trust Funds) were expressly set up to deal with unforeseeable issues, such as a roof collapsing or a special needs child unexpectedly transferring into the school after the budget for the year had been finalized. This “Technology Fund” would have no such “emergency trigger clause”, in fact the supporters of this article specifically did not support such wording. The idea stated here was to have money available to spend on the technology plan that is currently under development, assuming it is completed in a timely fashion, and assuming it is approved. Second, there is no stated rationale nor supporting documentation for the amount being requested. $90,000 is a lot of money to hand over without even the inkling of a plan. The Budget Committee opposes such an unsupported, undocumented request for what amounts to a “slush fund”. Proponents will claim it is not a slush fund because the money can not be dispersed without a public meeting, but we do not believe it should come to that. Public meetings are notoriously poorly attended, with the exception being by special interest groups looking to further very localized agendas. We believe that all  voters should be given an opportunity to express their feelings on fiscal matters. A request for funding with no plan or supporting documentation (the definition of a “slush fund”) is just fiscally irresponsible and such a request does not deserve your support. Please vote no on article 5 and demand a plan.