Questions remain on District 11 budget surpluses

Jun. 9—CHAPLIN — Questions remain about end-of-the-year budget surpluses in Regional School District 11, but school officials claim in the future the answers will be much clearer.

Though a new school budget for next year was passed, town officials in the district's three sending towns said the school system hasn't followed through on returning surplus funds in prior years.

The 2021- 22 budget of $ 6,507,420 for Parish Hill Middle/ High School was approved on its second try at referendum June 2, although two sending towns, Hampton and Scotland, had majorities in opposition to the budget.

The district's third town, Chaplin, had enough votes in favor to gain the budget's passage.

Before the district's second vote, flyers from the political action group " We Want A Sensible 2021- 22 RD11 Budget" were distributed.

They urged voters to defeat the budget because the district had " years of budget surpluses and an anticipated surplus of over $200,000 from the current fiscal year."

The group claims, despite that, the board of education only reduced the budget by $ 16,000 between the first and second referendums.

A second flyer from the Parish Hill Action Community Team/ Parent Teacher Association countered the board of education had actually "worked to return" $ 400,000 back to the sending towns.

Hampton residents Dayna McDermott- Arriola and Kathy Donahue both said the PHACT/PTA's claim, which was published in an Chronicle article ahead of the second referendum, is untrue.

" I attended that meeting (held on May 18) and the minutes show a motion for discussion and possible action on the offset to the assessment was defeated," Donahue said.

McDermott- Arriola agreed, adding " There is some confusion as to the distribution of these funds to the three member towns."

Dennis Labelle, chairman of the Regional School District 11 Board of Education,

QUESTIONS, Page 4

------

Questions remain on end-of-year budget surpluses for District 11

Continued from Page 1

did not dispute the board of education defeated the motion to return the funds, but said "the reason may not have been properly conveyed."

" The consensus of the board was not to decide on an offset based on an estimate or recommendation, but to review the state statute that speaks to how all surplus funds are to be handled, and to abide by said statute," Labelle said.

"This resulted in reducing the assessments to the towns by over $ 425,000, instead of the previous estimate of $200,000," he said.

Labelle said he and District 11 Superintendent Kenneth Henrici had met with legal counsel and auditors "to ensure these surplus funds are accounted for and used to reduce the next expenses of the district for the following fiscal year" as per state statute.

Donahue forwarded a copy of a letter from the three towns, dated June 2 and signed by Chaplin First Selectman William Rose IV, Hampton First Selectman Allan Cahill and Scotland First Selectman Gary Greenberg and addressed to Labelle and Henrici.

The letter stated Hampton and Scotland, based on student population ratios, would be expecting $100,213 and $165,958, respectively, from the returned surplus, which those towns planned to deduct from their next assessment payment to the district, while Chaplin would be expecting $159,363 as a refund.

The letter went on to say the towns would expect future surpluses to be returned to the towns, which has not been the case in the past.

" We would like to note that an examination of audits dating back to 2011 shows that (the statute) has not been followed for at least the last decade," the letter states.

" In that time, the district has offset the towns' assessment in various years by amounts ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. While this practice has spared the town the need to make appropriations to cover deficits in the years they have occurred, it has also resulted in an unassigned fund balance in your general fund of $556,508 as of June 30, 2020."

After the return of the surplus this year, the three first selectmen said they would waive their demand of the remainder due to the cost of researching the source of it.

"However, in the future, we will consider any accumulation in excess of $130,974 to be evidence of new surpluses due to the towns under the statute."

The letter also stated they had already heard from Henrici that "uniform practice" would be instituted for the future, and that it was appreciated.