Read you loud and clear
In the wake of last year's budget defeat and the merely symbolic pruning of the proposed Board of Education that followed, there was a sense among many that the message sent by the voters at the polls had gone unheeded. While some of the BoE's staunch defenders attempted to play down the significance of the first 'no' vote in recent memory, there are grounds to believe that frustration at the relative ease with which taxpayer protest was brushed aside last year might have boosted turnout in the Council elections among budget hawks, contributing to the victories of the candidates most focused on alleviating the property tax burden.This year's proposed Board of Education budget seems to recognize the shifting political landscape. Instead of the robust increases requested from the voters in recent years, the BoE has put forward a budget that would boost school taxes, the biggest portion of residents' property tax bills, by less than 3%, far below the 7.6% forecast increase in municipal taxes.
Is this not a clear demonstration of the power of the voter to shape the policy in Teaneck? Perhaps we need to see the budgets being proposed in neighboring communities this year to judge whether Superintendent John Czeterko's characterization of the budget as "lean" is accurate. Nonetheless, it is apparent that one way or the other, the voice of fiscal restraint has been heard. Whether the BoE is acknowledging the mistakes of last year, preparing to accomodate itself to a new legal landscape in which annual increases below a certain level will no longer require direct approval from the electorate, or passing along a portion of the benefit from increased state aid to the residents, it could be that the days of gigantic year-over-year jumps in school taxes are now behind us. And I, for one, am prepared to assign some of the credit for that to the voters who stood up to be counted in 2006.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 7:23 AM
13 Comments:
An increase in state aid following years of flat funding helped the district keep this year's tax hike below the inflation rate. Teaneck received $6.3 million in aid, an 11.4 percent increase from last year. - Record
There's more than just voter displeasure at work here
That is an extra $625k or so from the State. Certainly a nice bit of relief, but not the main storyline here.
NO ON THE SCHOOL BUDGET!!!
You've been fooled by the press release. Their "3%" increase assumes all other expenses stay constant. In reality it's roughly an 8%-9% increase in the school budget!
I am dismayed that (a) they did not televise tonight's debate (I have to be at home with the kids), instead having a poorly produced interview with the detective where they try to excuse the number of "NJTransit students," and (b) that the Board of Ed has STILL kept the budget neatly hidden so we won't see what they're wasting money on.
We need new blood on the Board - people who can see through the excuses and save us a few bucks - and make the schools better too. I'm still angry over last year's dismissal and the "paper cuts" where they played with the numbers so they could pretend to be cutting the budget without actually doing it.
You've been fooled by the press release. Their "3%" increase assumes all other expenses stay constant. In reality it's roughly an 8%-9% increase in the school budget!
Could you please explain? It appears to be pretty explicitly stated that the increase in school taxes needed to fund the proposed budget is just under 3%. Whether or not expenditures are growing faster than that rate, the cost to the taxpayers is growing at a slower pace than it was previously.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there was a “boosted turnout … among budget hawks” in last years municipal elections. Nor is there anything to indicate that “candidates most focused on alleviating the property tax burden” were victorious.
The results of the Gonzalez, Rudolph and Gussen campaign would seem to indicate the opposite. Their campaigns spent more than $45,000 advertising a shared platform and yet Rudolph and Gussen each got 1000 more votes than Gonzalez. I doubt very much that Gonzalez lost those votes to Ms. Parker, because Rudolph and Gussen supporters discerned that she was the true budget hawk amongst the Teaneck New Beginnings candidates.
The 2.92% increase is to the school portion of the tax rate. It is not synonymous with rate of the budget increase. The percentage increase in the budget is larger but not by much. I believe the budget total of $ 87,021,186 represents a 3.17% increase over last years budget total of $84,348,673. (See last line page 10 of last years Final Budget.) This is a reversal of the trend from prior years where the tax rate increase was larger than the budget increase as a result in decreasing or flat state aid.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there was a “boosted turnout … among budget hawks” in last years municipal elections. Nor is there anything to indicate that “candidates most focused on alleviating the property tax burden” were victorious.
No, you're right, I have to take that back. I had somehow forgotten that the newly elected Council members ran on boosting services for seniors, making peace with the unions, and holding the line against development, and have up to now focused only on those three priorities.
Given that a 4.5% increase in teachers' salaries which is about 60% of the budget gets you to an almost 3% increase without factoring increased costs for other goods and services, what areas where cut to maintain an overall spending increase of 3.17%?
Unless the Board has identified specific cuts, I am worried that this 3.17% increase is a politically savy move by the Board to ensure passage of the budget and merely defers spending on some items that we will pay for in the future.
This year's school budget is a good start and a good faith effort meriting passage this year. What does seem apparent is that Mr. Donow had an easy time bringing the budget down to this range. This suggests that last year's presentation of cuts to the outgoing council could have been handled better by the school board and that there is far more fat in the school budget than in the township budget. I watched both the school board members working with Mr. Donow and the Councilpeople working with Ms. Fall. There is no question but that the Councilpeople, especially those in the majority group, worked very hard to chisel away at an intractable budget whereas the school people simply rode along with Mr. Donow. I for one hope the new school board will use the precedent this year of bringing in a reasonable budget to establish permanently responsible budgets.
so where do we find the most, qualified, perfect school board candidates? and what do we do to convince them to run? and how do we get them elected?
The perfect school board candidate would have a financial backgroud (with experience in dealing with multi million dollar budgets), an educational background, an experienced labor negotiator, and a stakeholder in our public school system (deteremined to provide an excellent, well-rounded education for all Teaneck children, of all backgrounds and ethnicities)
of course, one of the most important qualifications: time to serve.
Which of our esteemed candidates has the necessary skillset?
Read the press release. No staff cuts, no program cuts, costs rising at least 4-5% in most categories. Yet somehow, magically, spending rises by 3% this year. I posted earlier at 9:43, but I'll repeat - does anyone know how you do this. What are these reallocations that allow the Board to trumpet the logic defying conclusion that they can produce a widget for 3% more even though all of the costs increase 4% or more.
Well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home