February 26, 2010
by Susie Pender
At Tuesday night’s School Board work session, Superintendent David Fleishman introduced his administration’s proposed 2010-11 school budget of $109,756,488, a 2.24% increase of $2,409,354 over the 2009-10 budget.
On December 15, the administration provided the school board and the community with a preliminary look at what it would cost to simply maintain the district’s current programs into the 2010-11 school year. This preliminary budget, available on the school district web site, www.ccsd.ws, indicated that it would require $112,902,819, a 5.18% increase of $5,555,685 to accomplish that. The feedback the administration received from the school board in response to that first look at the numbers was that the increase was too high to be acceptable to the community.
Board parameters for administration’s preparation of the 2010-11 budget
In response to suggestions by the administration, the board decided that the administration, in preparation of their proposed budget, would be permitted to use $1 million from reserve funds to reduce expenses in the 2010-11 budget, and $2.43 million in reserve funds and fund balances to reduce the tax levy, which is the amount of the tax increase generated by the budget increase.
As Superintendent Fleishman explained, “Three things happened to reduce the preliminary increase of 5.2% to 2.24%: the one million dollars in reserves that the board instructed us to use; the reduction of 7.44 full time teaching positions and 3.5 non-teaching positions, which saved another million dollars; and non-personnel savings of another million dollars. Last year we did a lot of cutting, we reduced the headcount significantly, which made things easier this year.”
The $1 million in non-personnel savings came primarily from three budget items. “We had projected a significant rise in pension contributions for this year, and they were not quite as high as we thought [they would be],” he stated. In addition, “the health insurance group [that the district belongs to] ended up using more reserves to keep down health costs, and we reduced the per pupil allocation.”
The administration’s best guess as to the likely tax increase
After the presentation of the proposal, board member Janet Benton asked the $64,000 question (which probably should be increased for inflation): What tax increase would be required to fund a 2.24% budget increase?
At this time, John Chow, assistant superintendent for business, is estimating that the tax increase for New Castle residents would be 2.43% to support a 2.24% budget increase. (New Castle – that is, Chappaqua and Millwood – residents shoulder almost 90% of the school tax burden for the Chappaqua Central School District; the substantially fewer Mt. Pleasant residents shoulder around 10%. Assistant Superintendent Chow’s tax analysis at this time was limited to New Castle.)
His very rough estimate at this time is based on the following assumptions and actions by the board, he explained.
1. The proposed budget increase remains at 2.24%.
2. State aid for 2010-11 is reduced by $570,000 to $6,717,851, the exact amount slated for the Chappaqua Central School District in Governor Paterson’s proposed budget.
3. The assessed value of New Castle, which totaled $941,685,265 last year, will be reduced by 0.3% based on what can only be “a very, very rough estimate” at this time by the New Castle tax assessor. “As we approach the end of April, when we set the final budget, this number will become closer to the actual number,” he explained. “The actual number for the assessed value of New Castle is not final until July or August.”
4. Based on the board’s instructions in December, the administration will use $232,361from the debt service reserve fund and $767,639 from the retirement contributions reserve fund, for a total of $1 million dollars, to reduce expenses.
5. Based on the board’s instructions in December, the administration will use $2.43 million of a combination of tax certiorari reserve funds and fund balances (money left over at the end of school year 2009-10) to reduce the tax levy.
Administration’s operating standards for preparation of the 2010-11 budget
Superintendent Fleishman explained at the beginning of the work session that a school budget is based on four pillars:
1. Class size (which determines staffing);
2. Program (course offerings, curriculum, support services, professional development);
3. Infrastructure (buildings and grounds, technology, clerical); and
4. Contractual obligations (separate collective bargaining agreements covering administrators, teachers, clerical and custodial).
The budget for each pillar is determined by the operating standards defined by the administration and accepted by the board. For example, the operating standards for the 2010-11 proposed budget include:
* Maintain current class size ratios at elementary schools
* Meet existing class ratios at the secondary level
* Maintain existing structures at the middle schools
* Offer the same breadth and depth of course offerings and extra-curricular activities at Greeley
From this presumption, that no changes will be made class size, if follows that no additional savings can be found in this pillar of the budget.
Superintendent Fleishman acknowledge that putting more students in classes, or offering online classes to high schools, are easy ways to save money. “But I’m not sure that’s what Chappaqua residents want.”
In response to a suggestion from a resident that the board shoot for a zero tax budget increase for the second year in a row, Fleishman responded, “The only way to do that, to find two million dollars to cut in this budget, would require changing the operating standards.”
There are three reasons why the administration was able to eliminate 7.44 full time teaching positions in this budget without affecting program or class size, Fleishman explained. Those are: declining or shifting enrollment at all three levels, elementary, middle and high school; the conclusion that the remaining staff at the high school meet the student demand and course requests; and the equalization of resources across the district.
Residents’ questions on the proposed budget
Not surprisingly, the question was raised, as it was during last year’s budget discussions, why not ask the teachers’ union to give back some of the salary increases they will enjoy for the next two years under their collective bargaining agreement given the continuing weak economy? One resident drew the board’s attention to the recent agreement by the Scarsdale Teachers’ Association to give back a total of $1.9 million of their salary increases over the next two years.
In response, Superintendent Fleishman explained: “What they came up with is comparable to what we did, they just did it differently. In exchange for the salary giveback, [Scarsdale] cannot layoff any teachers for the next two years, so they cannot address inefficiencies. We saved more by doing what we did [reducing teaching and non-teaching positions]. It is more efficient to do it this way. We reduced salaries, pension costs and health care costs.”
Another resident noted that the custodians’ contract is currently under negotiation. She asked whether in the context of that negotiation, the administration was pushing for additional employee contributions to health care costs and lower salary increases. Fleishman responded, “That’s a fair question.”
“We typically don’t talk publicly about a contract that is under negotiation. However, if you look at what’s going on around the Westchester school districts,” he began, then paused. “I’m going to talk about it broadly. See what’s going on, is that a fair answer? Look at the trends out there.” The trends he spoke of are, indeed, lower salary increases and higher contributions to health care costs.
In the last several years during budget discussions, the question has repeatedly arisen, could there be any substantial savings found by restructuring of the middle schools? And every year, for the last several years, the board has said, ‘yes, we should look at that, but not now, we’re too busy with the budget.’ During the question session at Tuesday’s work session, the question was raised again.
Specifically, the question is whether at some point, it will become inefficient to have two sections of seventh grade or two sections of eighth grade at Seven Bridges as the number of students at that school declines compared to the population at Bell. If the numbers begin to indicate that instead of four sections district-wide there really should be three sections district-wide of either of those grades, then the question becomes, what’s the most efficient configuration of the two middle schools?
This year the question was asked in the context of Superintendent Fleishman’s anticipated resignation at the end of this school year. “That is one of the things left on my agenda,” Fleishman responded. “There have been questions about looking at the middle school structure. It’s not a good time to introduce it during the budget cycle. We can show data about what the middle schools would look like under a different structure. I would be happy to do that and I feel obligated to do that.”
Board president Jeffrey Mester added, “We have committed to do that before next year’s budget cycle.”
During the discussion of class sizes and the way they can shift unpredictably, especially at the elementary schools, as classes nudge up against the maximum size and with the additional of a single student can suddenly require an additional section, Superintendent Fleishman made a proclamation: “I am officially ending the tradition at Westorchard Elementary School of telling students the last day of school who their teachers will be for the next year.”
How to stay informed during the budget discussions
Over the next six weeks the school board will meet four times to discuss each section of the proposed budget in greater depth. All meetings will be in the Academic Commons at Horace Greeley High School starting at 8:15 p.m. Board president Jeffrey Mester is looking into having the meetings televised live on NCCTV. They currently can be seen several days after the Tuesday meeting. Check NCCTV.org for the schedule of screenings, or to watch the replays in “video on demand.”
March 2: Curriculum and Technology
March 16: Special Education, Operations & Maintenance
March 23: Athletics and Non-instructional
April 13: Revenues, Tax Rates, Continue Budget Discussions
April 20: School Board adopts 2010-11 budget
May 4: Budget Hearing
May 18: Community vote on 2010-11 budget
A copy of the proposed budget may be obtained by clicking here, or going to www.ccsd.ws and clicking on “Presentation: Budget Overview, February 23, 2010.”
To view NCNOW’s archived articles and letters on the School Board’s 2010-2011 budget, click HERE.
To reach the Board of Education with your questions and comments, write .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Copyright 2012 NewCastleNOW.org