West Windsor-Plainsboro district officials trimmed $250,000 more from the 2011-’12 school budget to bring the tax increase down to 2.5 percent before voting to adopt it.
The $158.55 million budget represents an overall $2.7 million increase (1.72 percent) over last year’s $155.9 million budget. But the tax levy will increase to $147.12 million, an increase of $3.6 million over last year’s $143.5 million tax levy.
The newly revised budget was adopted after a public hearing on March 29. The budget will head to voters for approval on Wednesday, April 27, in the school elections.
The district is allowed to increase the budget by more than the 2 percent state cap on the tax levy because of certain exemptions.
Originally proposed at $158.8 million, the board cut $250,000 from what it will allocate to the Princeton International Academy Charter School, which is scheduled to open in September, 2011. The board had allocated $1.2 million, but the $250,000 brings the new amount to $950,000.
Superintendent Victoria Kniewel said during the presentation that the legacy of the district is to give students the tools they need to become effective communicators, problem solvers, and responsible citizens. “I’m confident this budget could do that,” she said.
“I am pleased we have been able to decrease the tax increase to 2.49 percent,” said school board member Todd Hochman, who originally opposed the 3.8 percent increase in taxes and voted against the preliminary budget sent to the county superintendent last month.
He dropped his opposition after the board whittled away $250,000 more. “I recognize that compromise means you do not necessarily get everything you want,” he said.
This is the second time this budget season that the board has cut from the tax levy, which began at $149 million. It decreased to $147.4 million after the governor restored $1.5 million in state aid, which represents some 20 percent of what the district lost when the governor cut $7.7 million in aid last year, officials said. The initial budget this year assumed no additional aid would be available.
When it comes to breaking down the tax burden, however, Plainsboro will have a greater increase in taxes this year.
In Plainsboro, taxpayers will pay $60.9 million in support of the school budget — a 2.8 percent increase over last year’s $56.5 million tax levy. In West Windsor, the amount to be raised by taxation is $86.1 million, an increase of 2.3 percent over last year’s $80.4 million.
If the budget is approved by voters, the tax rate in Plainsboro would increase by 7.5 cents — from $1.55 per $100 of assessed value in 2010 to $1.62 in 2011. The tax rate in West Windsor would increase by 8.8 cents — from $1.34 per $100 in 2010 to $1.43 in 2011.
Larry Shanok, the assistant superintendent for finance, said that declining home values had a significant role in the tax burden this year, as the value of the average home in Plainsboro fell from $395,000 to $389,000, and from $534,787 in West Windsor to $527,376.
The overall assessed property values declined by 0.6 percent in Plainsboro (from $3.72 billion to $3.70 billion) and by 2 percent in West Windsor (from $6.08 billion to $5.97 billion) — meaning the burden is handled by less value.
“As assessed values fall, tax rates increase,” explained Shanok. “There is a noticeable decline in each of our townships,” which sends the rate higher.
Hochman said “it’s unfortunate that taxes will be going up because of the valuation decrease. This is something the school district cannot control.”
For the owner of the average assessed home of $389,000 in Plainsboro, the school tax bill would be $6,317, up from the $6,119 the owner of a home at $395,000 paid last year.
In West Windsor, the average school tax bill for the owner of a home at $527,376 would be $7,536, up from the $7,171 the owner of a home at $534,787 paid last year.
Shanok said that years of modest increases have allowed the district to maintain quality education for its students. “You can get an immoderate amount of success from moderate budgeting,” he said.
Meanwhile, board members announced that the state has not approved the district’s application for a referendum on the ballot asking voters to approve the second phase of the solar project, which would have placed solar panels at seven WW-P schools.
The district was hoping to issue no-interest tax credit bonds from the federal government’s Clean Renewable Energy Bonds program — which expire 36 months after the district received them in 2009 — to finance the project. Officials estimated they would have needed to ask voters to approve $6.4 million in bonds for the project.
While the meeting was well attended by students and a few adults in the audience, only two residents spoke out against the budget.
Quentin Walsh — who has been engaged in an online debate at wwpinfo.com with Board President Hemant Marathe about figures in the district’s budget and the numbers it shares with the public (see letters, page 3) — criticized Superintendent Victoria Kniewel for beginning the budget presentation by mentioning the difficult financial times but then showing the tax increases.
“I don’t think these increases satisfy the fiscal reality,” Walsh said. He pointed to the 1.73 percent increase in the Montgomery school district’s tax levy. He read a quote from officials there, who said the smaller increase is what the times demanded. “I’m glad that Montgomery gets it; I’m sad that WW-P doesn’t get it.”
Board member Richard Kaye responded that Montgomery’s district is very different. It is relatively new, while WW-P has staff members that have many more years in the district, which demands higher pay. Comparing WW-P to districts like Princeton, Hopewell, and Lawrence — “all mature districts” with similar demographics — WW-P has the lowest per-pupil costs, he said.
“We have tried to keep our costs reasonable with a very high return” in the quality of education, he said.
Walsh, who is married to school board member Ellen Walsh, requested the board look at budget details and spending.
He also pointed to the district’s funding for the Community Education program, which generates a profit and has accumulated an unrestricted fund balance of $4.65 million. “Why won’t the district use that fund for tax relief?” he asked.
After the hearing, Shanok explained that the district does not charge Community Education the normal rent, utilities, and maintenance. “Unless the taxpayers were to subsidize Community Education, they have to run at a positive,” he said.
Shanok said this is because having a buffer allows room for unexpected costs. He pointed to an example that was raised by critics in the past with regard to utility bills. He said the board budgeted $4 million, even though three of the prior four years the district only used $3 million of the money.
“When you didn’t need it to pay the bill, it’s gone to tax relief,” Shanok said. “That’s why tax relief’s been so high.” In the fourth year, though, the bill was $600,000 above budget. The district had the money to pay it because it had a buffer in the budget, but there was less tax relief that year. But if there hadn’t been a buffer, “we’d have to cancel spring co-curriculars,” he said. “You could do that, but do you really want to tell the kids it’s been a cold winter, and there are no spring sports?”
Shanok said there is a profit in the Community Education program, but it is a profit in that the district does not charge for everything. Technically, the money can be used for tax relief, but “we don’t think it’s a good way,” he said. “It’s a difference of opinion. It’s not a gimmick; it’s a choice, and most of our present board members feel it’s not a good choice.”
Pete Weale also criticized the board during the hearing for not including parents in its mission statement. “You’re not listening to what people say.” He added that the district should talk to parents to get their input.
Prior to the board vote on the budget, board member Anthony Fleres said that “the Board of Education isn’t just a fundraising organization; we provide a service to students.”
Fleres said that voters have consistently approved the budget over the past 10 years because they value the quality of education the district offers. The proposed budget keeps costs down while maintaining that quality, he said.
He pointed to the community forums the district held this year, where participants ranked class sizes and other factors that would impact education as the last places they wanted the district to cut.
“All of their suggestions were things that wouldn’t impact the students,” Fleres said. “They always wanted to keep the quality of education intact.”
