WW-P’s 2012-’13 school budget discussions are underway despite the possibility that the public may not get to vote on it. Though cost reductions continue to be formulated, the district plans to maintain consistency. For example, Board Secretary and Assistant Superintendent for Finance Larry Shanok said in many circles it’s believed that “librarians, counselors, and nurses might be luxuries in the future, but WW-P disagrees with that.” He added that art and music are not valued by all but balance of co-curriculars and athletics is something the district will strive for.
Shanok gave a starter presentation at the board meeting on January 24, referring to the sting of the budget defeat one year ago. “Last year, for the first time in a dozen years and despite being a high-performing district with a per pupil cost $1,200 below state average, we saw that a defeated budget is entirely possible,” Shanok said.
Shanok’s presentation gave WW-P credit for being meticulous in taking care of its infrastructure and assets. He says there are over $200 million worth of physical assets in the district, and being cautious with them is key. “If you looked at it optimistically and overlooked inflation, and you said that you could replace all the assets methodically over a 40-year period, that would still be over $5 million a year. We don’t even dedicate that much in our annual budget, and one of the reasons we’re able to do that is spending a lot more on maintenance and repair work,” he said.
Shanok claims WW-P “benchmarks very well” with comparable high-performing districts in New Jersey, including its use of its capital reserve to support construction projects and utilizing available state funds, which contributed more than $6 million to projects from this year’s budget. Of that amount $4 million came from capital reserve while $2.5 million came from the state’s regular operating district grants, according to Shanok.
Shanok detailed the budget-to-budget increases of the past decade. “Over a six-year period it went up 4.3 percent every year. In today’s environment and fiscal mentality that amount might seem staggering but to remember, before that period where 4.3 was the norm the lowest budget-to-budget increase in the district had been 5.5 percent and the highest was 12.2 percent,” Shanok said.
In contrast, the 2011-’12 budget was only 1.4 percent higher than the year before. “By squeezing costs we’ve moved from our per pupil cost being above state average to below state average, showing our ability to constrain the right costs,” Shanok said.
Board member and finance committee chairman Tony Fleres said in 2010-’11 WW-P held its budget to the same as the previous year and had only $3.2 million in surplus.
“To be prudent we must budget conservatively since the school district doesn’t have a line of credit to fall back on. That provides a surplus if costs don’t rise as much as budgeted. Had we not been conservative and the 2009-’10 budget been smack-on, the $5.8 million of tax relief would not have been available for 2010-’11, turning that year’s surplus, which was used for tax relief this year, into a $2.6 million deficit, which could have forced a reduction of student programs or cancellation of needed maintenance work,” Fleres said.
“We’ve done remarkable things but there is a cost, and the indicator to that is our student-to-teacher ratio,” he said.
Class sizes in WW-P have reportedly gone as high as 27 students per class (see story below). Although saving money each year is crucial, Shanok said the district would prefer to have more teachers and certified staff, either directly in classrooms or in support of students, to buck the trend. That is unlikely, however.
“If we move aggressively further (with financial trimming) student-to-teacher ratio will undoubtedly have to move further up also, even more so with the student-administrator ratio,” he said.
According to the data Shanok presented, administrators in WW-P are asked to handle significantly more responsibility than most. The district currently has one administrator per 217.8 students. In comparison Princeton has one administrator per 140.5 students, Hopewell has one per 156.5 students, Ewing has one per 161.2 students, and East Windsor has one per 174.1 students. Trenton has one per 161.4 students.
