Post by admin on Apr 1, 2009 6:19:32 GMT -5
Freehold school budget set for voters
FREEHOLD — Debate before Monday's vote on the borough school district's 2009-2010 budget centered on one question — Did the district give taxpayers enough relief?
The $20 million budget was approved 5-2 Monday, but not until board member Andrew DeFonzo questioned why the budget called for a tax increase of 2.4 cents for every $100 of assessed property value.
"I would have really rather we didn't raise taxes at all," DeFonzo said.
DeFonzo and fellow board member Frank Gill — who chose not to run for re-election this year — voted against the budget.
The budget approved Monday includes $17.4 million in operating expenses, an increase of almost $750,000 from the current budget, according to Business Administrator Patrick DeGeorge.
Part of that increase is an extra $439,232 in promised state aid, nearly five percent more aid than the district expected to receive.
Officials had assumed they would receive flat funding and budgeted accordingly, cutting almost $200,000 in expenses like classroom supplies. New spending, like the addition of a literacy coach, was also taken out of the budget, DeGeorge said Tuesday.
When officials learned about the extra funding, that spending was added back into the budget, DeGeorge said.
But, DeFonzo argued Monday, why not maintain the status quo and pass on the savings to taxpayers?
"It's really been eating away at me," DeFonzo said. "I don't think we acted in the best interests of the public."
District officials have an obligation to build the district up to adequacy, Schools Superintendent Elizabeth O'Connell argued.
The district's proposed 2009-2010 spending is almost $4 million below the level the state considers adequate for a district of the borough's size, DeGeorge explained during Monday's budget presentation. This lack, said DeGeorge, means the district cannot add classrooms to solve capacity issues, cannot make all the desired repairs and replacements and may need to cut staff or programs in the future.
The state needs to increase its aid to bring the district up to adequacy, DeGeorge said.
Officials also argued Monday that they were providing a form of tax relief by asking for less in tax funding than they legally could have, based on the four percent tax levy cap imposed on school districts.
By law, the district could have asked for about $90,000 more in taxes than it did, DeGeorge said.
The budget approved Monday includes an operating fund tax levy — the amount raised through taxation — of roughly $8 million, almost $219,000 higher than the 2008-2009 levy. Residents will have a chance to vote on this levy April 21.
The budget also includes a debt service levy of $611,843, about $18,000 lower than the current levy.
Combined, those levies mean a tax rate increase from 76.4 cents to 78.8 cents for every $100 of assessed property value, DeGeorge said.
The increase would mean an extra $62 in taxes for the average homeowner with a property assessed at $259,676.
Previous PageKim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com
www.app.com/article/20090401/NEWS01/904010382/1285/LOCAL09
FREEHOLD — Debate before Monday's vote on the borough school district's 2009-2010 budget centered on one question — Did the district give taxpayers enough relief?
The $20 million budget was approved 5-2 Monday, but not until board member Andrew DeFonzo questioned why the budget called for a tax increase of 2.4 cents for every $100 of assessed property value.
"I would have really rather we didn't raise taxes at all," DeFonzo said.
DeFonzo and fellow board member Frank Gill — who chose not to run for re-election this year — voted against the budget.
The budget approved Monday includes $17.4 million in operating expenses, an increase of almost $750,000 from the current budget, according to Business Administrator Patrick DeGeorge.
Part of that increase is an extra $439,232 in promised state aid, nearly five percent more aid than the district expected to receive.
Officials had assumed they would receive flat funding and budgeted accordingly, cutting almost $200,000 in expenses like classroom supplies. New spending, like the addition of a literacy coach, was also taken out of the budget, DeGeorge said Tuesday.
When officials learned about the extra funding, that spending was added back into the budget, DeGeorge said.
But, DeFonzo argued Monday, why not maintain the status quo and pass on the savings to taxpayers?
"It's really been eating away at me," DeFonzo said. "I don't think we acted in the best interests of the public."
District officials have an obligation to build the district up to adequacy, Schools Superintendent Elizabeth O'Connell argued.
The district's proposed 2009-2010 spending is almost $4 million below the level the state considers adequate for a district of the borough's size, DeGeorge explained during Monday's budget presentation. This lack, said DeGeorge, means the district cannot add classrooms to solve capacity issues, cannot make all the desired repairs and replacements and may need to cut staff or programs in the future.
The state needs to increase its aid to bring the district up to adequacy, DeGeorge said.
Officials also argued Monday that they were providing a form of tax relief by asking for less in tax funding than they legally could have, based on the four percent tax levy cap imposed on school districts.
By law, the district could have asked for about $90,000 more in taxes than it did, DeGeorge said.
The budget approved Monday includes an operating fund tax levy — the amount raised through taxation — of roughly $8 million, almost $219,000 higher than the 2008-2009 levy. Residents will have a chance to vote on this levy April 21.
The budget also includes a debt service levy of $611,843, about $18,000 lower than the current levy.
Combined, those levies mean a tax rate increase from 76.4 cents to 78.8 cents for every $100 of assessed property value, DeGeorge said.
The increase would mean an extra $62 in taxes for the average homeowner with a property assessed at $259,676.
Previous PageKim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com
www.app.com/article/20090401/NEWS01/904010382/1285/LOCAL09
