Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
PINE PLAINS — Revenue numbers, or the lack thereof, were the subject of Pine Plains’ first budget workshop of the season, held last Wednesday, Jan. 27, in the Stissing Mountain High School library’s conference room.
Michael Goldbeck, assistant superintendent for business and finance, presented the Board of Education (BOE) with an outline of how revenues will shape the 2010-11 school year budget, and how the uncertainty of state aid will factor heavily into the district’s budget-making process.
Gov. David Paterson’s recent budget proposal included significant cuts to state aid. In Pine Plains, state aid accounted for 27.1 percent of the 2009-10 budget, and the governor’s cuts, which would total over $1.1 million in state aid reduction for the school district, represents more than 4 percent of last year’s total budget, which was roughly $26 million.
Each year is increasingly more difficult for school districts in the county and state, according to the BOE. The trend, as Goldbeck illustrated with a series of charts, has been that state aid to the district has remained the same over the last few years while operating budgets have increased.
“The state continues to see Pine Plains as a wealthy district,� he explained. “That’s the issue we’re facing.�
The Pine Plains district will suffer the most significant state aid cuts under the governor’s proposal in the county (at almost a 16 percent reduction, it’s nearly 4 percent more than the second worst, Webutuck). Goldbeck said the problem is that property values have increased some $200 million in 2007, while school district enrollment has decreased.
It was suggested that people who primarily reside in New York City are claiming Pine Plains as their primary residence in order to vote in Dutchess County, where their individual votes would have more impact in a smaller community.
“It’s a very challenging situation,� Goldbeck acknowledged. The state’s revenue numbers, as they relate to the amount of state aid Pine Plains would be receiving, might not be available until after the April 1 deadline for the school district to present a budget for voter consideration. In that case, the budget would have to use the governor’s proposal, largely considered to be a worst-case scenario for the district.
“Various media reporters have quoted [members of the state Legislature] as saying the governor’s budget is dead on arrival,� district Superintendent Linda Kaumeyer said, adding the district will be preparing itself for the worst.
Another point to consider is the possibility that the budget could be voted down by district residents. If that were the case, as it was two years ago, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) would dictate a 0 percent increase under a contingency budget, Goldbeck said.
Now that the budget season is officially underway, reports will be given to the Board of Education at its regular meetings, and budget workshops will continue to be held on a monthly basis.
The next workshop is scheduled for Feb. 24 and will focus on district expenditures.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.