William C. Martin, Montgomery
After a sound defeat for its last school budget, one would think that Montgomery’s school board would be singing a more austere tune as they plan for the upcoming year’s budget.
Instead, it appears they are again proceeding with a “business as usual” attitude. For us taxpaying residents, this approach promises yet higher property taxes, bogus solutions like levying school parents with greater fees, and of course trying to blame Trenton for this mess.
The fiscal irresponsibility of our town at present and over the recent past is evident and is borne out in the numbers. Since 2005, we have seen the following increases in school costs, staffing, and benefits:
Teaching and school staff up 17 percent, an increase of 105 total members.
Regular instruction salaries up 25 percent.
School administration spending up 30 percent.
Special education spending up 34 percent.
Services, plant operations and maintenance costs up 25 percent to 37 percent.
Employee benefit expenses, including health, retirement and pensions, up 69 percent.
In aggregate, total district expenses grew by 33 percent over this time period, while school enrollment grew by only 8 percent, or by just 406 students. Amazingly, this translates into one new staff member for every four new students over the past five years. If this ratio had instead been maintained at one new staff member for every 10 new students, I estimate that the average taxpayer in our community would be spending approximately $500 less per year, or $4 million in total, in property taxes.
To pay for this profligate spending, tax levies have increased by 27 percent since 2005 even though the assessed value of the residential real estate in Montgomery grew by less than 1 percent. As we all know far too well, the reality is home prices are actually down over this time period.
Looking forward, enrollment is slated to grow less than 1 percent in total over the next several years, meaning there is absolutely no excuse for our leaders to not put forth a 0-inflation budget and flat property tax proposal. Frankly, after reviewing the 145-page Montgomery’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2008-2009, I believe the School Board could cut $5 to $10 million of fat out of its cost structure without impacting education quality, enough to offset the state’s reduction in aid and to maintain flat or even reduce property taxes.
I am tired of reading in the paper that the solution to this mess is less bus rides in the morning for students, or cuts in athletic programs, or imposing new fees to park in the high school lot. Those are all political fig leaves designed to take the focus off the real “elephant in the room” issues and the board’s poor fiscal management.
For example, benefit costs for teachers and administration are now approaching 20 percent of the total budget after growing over 10 percent last year and roughly 9 percent compounded per year over the last five years. These costs now total over $2,700 per student per year, up by $900 per student just in the past five years. Left ignored, the average homeowner in this town will see his or her property taxes rise by at least $120 per year just to pay for teachers’ full-family health care benefits and early retirements.
The board must also identify cost savings in the many substantial “administrative and support” budgetary line items. Is it necessary to spend $7 million on plant operations and maintenance? Or $6 million on transportation? Or $1 million on supervision of instructional services? Certainly there are plenty of areas, like these, where efficiencies can be extracted, shared services or outsourcing explored, and trade-offs made.
Just as local businesses and households are tightening their belts in response to difficult conditions, it is time that fiscal responsibility and austerity arrive at the school board as well. Tough decisions need to be made, such as rationalizing benefit programs, materially increasing health and pension plan contribution levels by recipients, and eliminating salary increases and extra staff members.
In conclusion, I would encourage my fellow residents to vote against the status quo participants on the school board and Township Committee who are responsible for this predicament and who do not have the backbone or expertise to correct it. The numbers don’t lie.
William C. Martin
Montgomery

