By Kayla J. Marsh
Staff Writer
ABERDEEN – A $68.4 million budget for the 2016-17 school year that highlights an increase in state aid was introduced by the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District Board of Education.
During the board meeting that was held on Feb. 22, the interim Business Administrator, Thomas M. Venanzi, introduced the proposed budget, which shows how the district stacks up against similar districts of like size throughout the state.
“The bottom line is that this proposal has a tax increase for both municipalities of a minimal nature and the school tax rate is going up less than one cent in both communities,” he said.
The proposed total budget for the 2016-17 school year is $68,389,585. The budget for the current 2015-16 school year was $68,372,252.
The 2016-17 budget includes a tax levy of $52,468,141. The tax levy is the total amount of money that property owners in Matawan and Aberdeen will pay to support the operation of the school district from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. The tax levy for 2015-16 was $48,072,836.
Venanzi said the school tax rate in Matawan for 2016-17 will be $1.63 per $100 of assessed value. That means the owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $315,400 will pay about $5,141 in school taxes over the next year.
The school tax rate in Aberdeen Township for 2016-17 will be $1.72 per $100 of assessed value, according to the business administrator. That means the owner of a home assessed at the township average of $273,144 will pay about $4,697 in school taxes over the next year.
The increase in school taxes is less than $25 for Matawan residents and less than $16 for Aberdeen residents, according to budget figures presented to the board.
State aid will increase from $12,180,468 for the 2015-16 school year to $12,272,450 for the 2016-17 school year, according to the business administrator.
“That ($92,000 increase in state aid) is good news because recent history has been that (state aid) has been flat, so we are happy the aid is at least going up,” he said.
State aid will increase from $12,180,468 for the 2015-16 school year to $12,272,450 for the 2016-17 school year, according to the business administrator.
“That ($92,000 increase in state aid) is good news because recent history has been that (state aid) has been flat, so we are happy the aid is at least going up,” Venanzi said.
District officials said the proposed school budget is in compliance with state law and residents will not vote on the spending plan.
“It is important for the board to have an understanding of what is involved with our budget development process,” Venanzi said. “It starts very early in the year and is a very long process.”
Venanzi said that the business administrator submits information to the district’s department heads, a process that starts in October. The department heads submit their requests to the business administrator at the start of the year. The business administrator reviews the requests and establishes priorities based on the needs the district has for its students.
“Very importantly, whenever any decision is made, the focus is entirely student-centered and that is what this budget is all about,” he said.
Venanzi said the district’s budget is made up of three funds – the general fund, special revenue (grants) and debt service.
“The original budget does change during the course of the year as our grants in the special revenue fund are finalized after the budget is approved,” he said.
The general fund for 2016-17 is $50,596,991 and the debt service payment for 2016-17 is $1,871,150, according to figures presented to the board.
“We are proposing a reduction in the 2016-17 school year in the debt service portion of the budget in the amount of $577,000 … because of debt that is rolling off the table after this (2015-16) school year,” he said.
Venanzi said there is $1 million in banked cap funds from the 2013-14 year that must be used.
The banked cap represents tax money the district could have collected for the 2013-14 budget year, but chose not to collect at that time. The uncollected money was “banked” and can be collected from taxpayers and used in the 2016-17 budget.
“The way the law was structured, you can only increase your general fund local tax levy 2 percent every year, but the state did allow for additional increases beyond the 2 percent,” Venanzi said. “The first one being for increases for health insurance premiums and the other adjustment is called banked cap which is basically where adjustments not used are banked for up to three years for future use.
“It is very important to understand that if that ($1 million) is not used with the 2016-17 school year, it goes away. We have to use this money in order to maintain the programs we have in the school district or we need to start making reductions for the services for the students,” he said.
Using a guide published annually by the state Department of Education, Venanzi highlighted the district’s cost per pupil.
“The district is spending about $1,000 under the state average, so we are a very fiscally prudent school district in that we are spending below average and that is compared with 103 K-12 districts across the state that are of similar size with over 3,500 students,” he said.
The district spends about $13,824 per pupil, compared to the state average of $14,986 per pupil and is ranked 34th lowest among the 103 school districts to which it was compared.
Venanzi also focused on administrative costs per pupil.
“Very frequently boards will target administration (costs) and again the district is below the state average slightly, but more importantly, well below the regional average maximum,” he said. “There is about a $300 variance between the regional maximum and what we are actually spending.”
The district has a $1,532 administrative cost per pupil, compared to the state average of $1,556 administrative cost per pupil and the regional maximum permitted of $1,894, and is ranked 59th lowest among the 103 districts to which it was compared.
“Another important non-instructional area is the operations and maintenance cost per pupil,” Venanzi said. “This is the cost to run your facilities and again we are well below the state average here … and we are the 16th lowest in this category.”
The board will have another presentation about proposed expenditures at its March 14 meeting. At that time, the board will be asked to adopt the tentative budget before it is submitted to the executive county superintendent by March 22.
A public hearing on and adoption of the final budget is scheduled for April 25.
“There may be some minor adjustments that we may need to make between now and when the rest of the budget is presented on March 14 as we enter details into the Department of Education budget software, but I do not expect that there will be any significant change,” Venanzi said.