MONROE — Though the public hearing on the 2013-14 school budget is weeks away, residents are already raising concerns about the potential tax increase.
As was previously reported in the Sentinel, Monroe school officials said they are likely to raise the tax levy up to the 2 percent cap on annual increases.
At a December Board of Education meeting and again at the Jan. 16 meeting, school Business Administrator Michael C. Gorski said the move was due mostly to the influx of an additional 225 students that are expected to enter Monroe schools next fall. This means the district must budget an additional $3.1 million, based on the average education cost of roughly $15,000 per pupil.
Even after reaching the cap, additional budget cuts will be necessary to cover the new student costs, as well as to cover a lease payment of $430,000 for new instructional equipment; a $100,000 lease payment for three 54-passenger buses and two vans that need to be replaced due to state requirements; and $1.25 million for the replacement of a classroom-wing roof at the Monroe Township Middle School.
Another significant challenge facing the district is the fact that the surplus account has been reduced by $1.4 million to cover Applegarth Elementary School renovations, above what was initially budgeted for the project, according to district officials.
During the public comment portion of the Jan. 16 meeting, residents asked the board to tighten its belt on spending.
Joe Castelluccio of Monroe Citizens for Responsible Government said the board could cut 5 to 10 percent of the budget without impacting the quality of education.
“You could cut it, you could cut it very easily,” Castelluccio said. “You choose to gotothe2percentcap.Ifitwasa3percent cap, guess what, you’d go up to the 3 percent cap. That’s the way it works. If you have the money, you’ll spend it.
“You have to look at the budget as if it was your own home budget,” he added. “You spend what you can afford to spend.”
He further stated that any time a resident raises concerns about wasteful spending in the school budget, they are portrayed as being anti-education.
Several senior citizens in the audience noted that they are on fixed incomes and that additional tax increases are of paramount concern to them. Other residents asked why district officials did not attempt to get teachers to agree to a salary freeze or to reduce their salaries in the most recent round of labor negotiations.
Board member Ken Chiarella, a member of the board’s Personnel Committee, said a hard-line stance could have resulted in an arbitrator giving teachers salary increases regardless of what the board had requested.
“We feel what we did as far as givebacks, health insurance and stuff like that, we pretty much negated the raises,” Chiarella said. “There are a lot of things that go into this.”
School officials also defended their overall fiscal policies and philosophy.
Board member Lew Kaufman pointed to the recent courtesy busing cuts as an example. At the time of the cuts, officials said decreasing the district’s over-adequacy funding could increase its state aid in the future.
“We’re trying to do our very best,” Kaufman said. “We live here, we pay taxes here and we are also committed to looking at everything we possibly can to make this school system run as efficiently as possible.”
Gorski said the board has already committed to budget cuts amounting to approximately $2.75 million to cover the costs of educating the new students and bring the budget under the cap.
Superintendent of Schools Kenneth Hamilton said reductions are identified early on in the process of devising the budget.
“My point is when the public comes in and says, ‘Cut, cut, cut,’ that is exactly what we’ve been doing in order to meet the demands and limitations imposed upon us by the 2 percent cap,” Hamilton said, noting that much of the budget and the items causing it to increase are fixed costs.
Board President Kathy Kolupanowich pointed out a series of cost-saving initiatives and cuts undertaken by the district over the past two years that resulted in savings of nearly $13 million.
Also at the meeting, district officials lamented the state’s school aid formula and asked residents to support legislation designed to increase aid to Monroe because of the percentage of residents who are seniors. More information on the legislation and contacts for local legislators are available on the district’s website at www.monroe.k12.nj.us.
In other news, the board authorized an agreement with PSE&G to retrofit lighting fixtures at Barclay Brook and Brookside elementary schools, as well as the central administration and transportation buildings and the Mill Lake annex. Gorski said 80 percent of the costs will be borne by PSE&G, with the remaining 20 percent being paid by the board in its monthly utility costs through a 24-month interest free loan.
Gorski added the energy savings, estimated to be $18,000 a year, will more than offset costs incurred.
“It’s a real win-win for the environment and the school district,” he said. “We had this before, many years ago. I’m glad they’ve reintroduced it.”