The budget was the hot topic at the March 11 WW-P school board meeting, with state aid, budget caps, and process fueling the debate.
The budget presented was virtually the same as the one presented at the February 18 board meeting, with one exception. As assistant superintendent for finance Larry Shanok explained, “The state just sent us information regarding how much state aid we will be receiving this year. And, unexpectedly, the amount has gone up from last year” — a total of $7,961,085, an increase of approximately $200,000 over last year.
Shanok explained that this additional aid will be allocated to special education instruction and transportation (for those students transported to out-of-district schools). The total proposed budget for 2014-’15 will be $164,625,300, an increase of 1.34 percent over last year’s budget.
For taxpayers this means a total tax levy increase of 2.35 percent, the maximum allowed under New Jersey state law.
“We have to balance the idea of fiscal restraint with the impact on students, particularly class size considerations,” said Shanok. “If you compare West Windsor-Plainsboro to other high-performing school districts, our student-to-teacher ratio is higher than all of them, and our student-to-administrator ratio of 247 to 1 is significantly higher than even the next highest district. And yet our actual per pupil costs are in the middle. Some districts, such as Princeton, spend more per pupil, and others, such as Montgomery and South Brunswick, spend less. We are not anxious to increase our student to teacher and administrator ratios much more, because our students will surely be negatively impacted.”
Board of Education president Tony Fleres justified the proposed tax levy increase. “For the past two years we have had the perfect storm of events that allowed us to have a zero percent tax levy increase, or even a reduction, especially because previously we had to budget for the charter school, which never materialized, so we hadn’t needed to spend the money on the charter school. Now we no longer budget for that, so the money is no longer available for future tax relief. But we knew that this couldn’t go on indefinitely — costs and expenses continue to increase, and we are at the point where if we don’t increase the budget, the students will suffer.”
Continued Fleres: “We are taking money from the fund balance reserves. In the proposed budget, we did not allocate extra money for employee benefits. We are assuming that they will remain flat as they have previously. Eventually they will increase, and that will also require us to tap into fund balances.”
The fund balance reserve does not automatically replenish, he noted. “Using more of the fund balance than we take in every year becomes problematic. Eventually, that practice has to come to an end or we won’t have the reserves we need for unexpected expenses.”
“It’s like a tube of toothpaste. Even when you think the tube is empty, you can get some more toothpaste out of it if you squeeze hard enough. But, at some point there is no more toothpaste left. And we are at that point now.”
Board member Scott Powell disagreed. “Under state law, we are only supposed to increase the budget by 2 percent every year, and we have gone over that. So I will not support this budget because we have gone over the 2 percent cap.”
Fleres responded: “Saying that the cap is 2 percent is a nice sound bite. But state law actually allows for 2 percent plus allowances, which actually means that an increase of 2.35 percent is allowed.”
“We are within the law and the intent of the law,” Fleres said. “And we didn’t even come close to 2 percent the past two years, much less use our allowances. So I am very comfortable that we are following the law. And, if we were in violation, we would be corrected by the county, which reviews and ultimately approves our budget. And while they may change some portion of it, they have given no indication that we have violated the state law.”
Fellow board member Rachelle Feldman-Hurwitz also voiced concerns, though not with the budget itself. Her concern was with this year’s budget process.
“Larry Shanok does a great job with the budget, and I am not opposed to this budget itself. I am raising a process issue. We had no budget retreat this year, nor did we have in-depth conversations about the budget. Approving the budget is one of our most important responsibilities, and our collective voice matters. We need to come to the table and go over the budget together. Because we were unable to do so this year, I am voting against the budget as a matter of conscience.”
Fleres again responded, pointing out that this budget is virtually the same as the one discussed at the board meeting a month ago, with the exception of the increase in state aid. He also noted that the past year had been unusual in that it was the first time that Board elections were held in November, instead of April, which made it difficult to schedule a budget retreat, especially since four of the nine board members are newly elected and just took office in January.
Superintendent David Aderhold also spoke on the process issue. “Normally, I do not comment on budget discussions between board members, but there are a few points I would like to make. First, while Shanok does work on the budget, he is not the only one — literally hundreds of my staff members work on the budget every year. Moreover, to say we didn’t have a budget process is disingenuous at best. We have been working on this budget for over a year, and we have had many, many conversations about it, as we always do. In fact, the budget process for the 2015-’16 budget has already begun.”
“In addition, I stand behind this budget. We are allowed to go to a 2.35 percent tax levy increase, and I support that. In the future, I frankly see more increases. We will have to cut essential services if we don’t go to the cap limit. It was not an easy decision for the administration to make, and I know it is not an easy decision for the board to make. But if we are going to cut essential programs and services for our students, I simply cannot stand behind that. We have to do what is right for the students,” he added.
The Board ultimately voted 7 to 2 to send the proposed budget to the county for review with Powell and Feldman-Hurwitz casting the dissenting votes. Once the county reviews and ultimately approves the budget, it will be sent back to the board, which will hold a public budget hearing on Tuesday, April 29.
