After weeks of debate between Bethlehem Central school officials, parents and students regarding the 2012-13 school year budget, the final public hearing on the spending plan before the May 15 vote saw sparse attendance.
On Wednesday, May 2, the district once again briefed those in attendance about the $88,203,000 spending plan adopted by the Board of Education last month. Board members decided to challenge the state tax cap to minimize the number of cuts in next year’s budget, and residents will vote on a 3.99 percent levy increase.
The new tax levy would reduce the budget gap to $3.8 million and $1.7 million in reserve funds would also be used to balance the budget. Under the tax cap law, for the budget to pass at least 60 percent of those voting will need to be in favor of the plan instead of a simple majority. If the spending plan is voted down the district would have the option of revising it and putting it to a second vote.
“This board is putting forth a proposal which they feel will move forward with all of the tools at their disposal,” said Superintendent Tom Douglas.
If the budget is approved by the public, reductions will fall midway into the second tier of a four-tier list of cuts established by the district. However, more than 56 full-time-equivalent positions could be eliminated, 22 of them teaching positions.
According to Chief Business and Financial Officer Judith Kehoe, the estimated tax rate increase is 3.72 percent for Bethlehem residents and 0.59 percent for New Scotland residents.
The estimated tax rate increase would mean a home in Bethlehem assessed at $100,000 would pay an additional $75 per year for and in New Scotland, $12. The district is recommending residents use the new tax calculator on the district’s website to determine how much they would pay based on the new tax levy increase.
Four people rose from the audience at Wednesday’s meeting to speak on the budget.
“I wish I could tell you I support the budget, unfortunately I really don’t,” said parent Scott Bonanno after thanking the board members for their hard work. “I see the 3.99 percent not as an undoable number … but I think the problem is there’s no solution for next year and there’s no solution for the year beyond that.”
Board member Caitlin Navarro said she understands people are unhappy about the situation, but she would caution residents about letting the budget fail because going to a lower contingency would just mean additional budget cuts and more jobs lost.
If the budget is voted down twice, Kehoe said the district would need to make $6 million in additional cuts.
The adopted spending plan calls for cuts to electives resulting in larger class sizes, phasing out the Chinese language program, reducing 20 percent of all clubs at the middle and high school levels and eliminating the gymnastics program. The district is also working on a plan to implement centralized bus stop locations, meaning some students in higher grade levels would need to walk farther to reach a bus stop.
One woman asked why the district did not list the cost of all of the state unfunded mandates schools are required to provide.
“The community knows each year those mandates are increased and we have to absorb those costs,” she said.
Douglas said the mandates are usually the hardest for districts to implement and pay for, and said this year three more mandates have been added including C.P.R. instruction and how to prevent childhood abduction. The superintendent said a report out of Suffolk County estimated state unfunded mandates equal about 18 to 20 percent of a municipality’s budget.
“The problem is unfunded mandates can be seen two ways,” he said. “We can say they’re unfunded mandates, but the state can say that’s why we give you state aid so therefore we are funding them. So that’s the point and counterpoint, however we know the reality. They keep giving us state aid, but they keep giving us requirements, too.”
When Bonanno asked if a municipality had every challenged the mandates, Douglas said some have begun to talk about it. The problem is if the district refused to implement the mandates, the state could remove the school board and deny state aid.
“I don’t think 3.99 percent is a bad number… but we’re at the line in the sand,” said Bonanno. “Anything beyond this next year we’re going to be directly cutting into the fabric of what this school is all about.”
Voting will take place at the BC high school gym from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
More local budgets by the numbers
Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District
Proposed budget: $41.7 million
Proposed levy increase: 6.8 percent
Budget gap: $3 million
Spending reduction over current year: 1.7 percent
Voting will take place at the RCS High School gym from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Guilderland Central School District
Proposed budget: $89.2 million
Proposed levy increase: 2.2 percent
Budget gap: $2.6 million
Spending increase over current year: 0.34 percent
Voting will take place at all five elementary school buildings from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Voorheesville Central School District
Proposed budget: $21.9 million
Proposed levy increase: 2.43 percent
Budget gap:
Spending increase over current year: 2.83 percent
Voting will take place at the Voorheesville Middle School foyer from 2 to 9 p.m.