Post by richardkelsey on Apr 23, 2008 13:39:19 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2008/0423/Front_Page/009.html
School leaders dejected by rejection of budget
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
FREEHOLD - The Freehold Borough K-8 School District's budget is now in the hands of the Borough Council.
By a margin of 24 votes in the April 15 school election, voters said no to a $7.8million tax levy that the Board of Education proposed to raise to support a 2008-09 school year budget totaling $19.6 million.
The budget proposed to raise the local school tax rate by 2.4 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $257,000 would have paid $62 more in K-8 school taxes in 2008-09, compared to 2007-08.
The tax levy was defeated by a count of 240 no votes to 216 yes votes. By law, the Borough Council will now review the proposed budget and may recommend changes in the proposed tax levy. The council has the option to leave the tax levy as the board proposed it or to take no action, which was the case several years ago with another defeated tax levy.
If the council fails to certify a school tax levy by mid-May the budget will go to the state Department of Education for review.
The voters' rejection of what school administrators said was a carefully crafted budget struck a blow at the district offices.
Superintendent of Schools Elizabeth O'Connell said she could not explain why the turnout was so low on Election Day. She said she could not pin the defeat on any one thing.
"I don't understand it," she said "Last year we were cutting positions and had a higher tax increase. This year we were restoring positions and lowering the tax increase. I only wish I knew why it was defeated."
School district Business Administrator Veronica Wolf said the council members "can choose to accept the budget as is and certify the tax levy or they can chose to reduce the tax levy by cutting some items. But they must outline where they are taking the cuts from and they must state in a resolution that the reductions will not affect our ability to provide a thorough and efficient education and that the cuts will not affect the stability of our school district for long-range planning purposes."
The third option is for the council to fail to certify the tax levy and pass it on to the county superintendent of schools and thereafter to the New Jersey commissioner of education.
Action must be taken by the council by May 19.
School administrators were in a much better frame of mind after the 2007 election when voters delivered a double victory to the board.
By a count of 357 to 299, a tax levy of $7.4 million was approved to support the $16.7 million 2007-08 school budget.
And, by a count of 342 to 314, voters approved a second ballot question to raise an additional $75,275 in local taxes to be used for school-sponsored athletics and extracurricular activities.
In April 2006, voters rejected the proposed tax levy and two referendum questions that would have provided additional space in borough schools.
The board sought approval for a $15.6 million budget for the 2006-07 school year, but voters said no to the $7million tax levy to support that budget. The vote was 543 no votes to 269 yes votes.
Voters rejected the two referendum questions by the following counts: 585 no votes to 261 yes votes, and 591 no votes to 229 yes votes.
After reviewing the budget the council passed a resolution seeking theMonmouth County superintendent's review of the school budget. The 2006-07 budget was then approved by the council as it had been proposed by the board.
In the 2005 school election, voters approved the 2005-06 budget by a count of 223 to 187.
In addition to rejecting the proposed tax levy for 2008-09, voters on April 15 returned three incumbents to the board. James Keelan (296 votes), Andrew De- Fonzo (282 votes) and Adam Reich (277 votes) ran unopposed for three-year terms.
In considering the rejection of the tax levy Keelan acknowledged the voters' "frustration" with the government and the high taxes they pay in New Jersey.
"Unfortunately for the schools, the closest place to take out these frustrations is the board of education budget," Keelan said. "It also did not help that the state set the election date for April 15, the day your federal taxes are due, too. We tried to let the community know that even if our budget passed, and even with our additional $1.5million increase in state aid, we would still be $3 million below the level (defined by the state) that is required to fund our schools."
Reich said he was "obviously disappointed that the budget was defeated and also that the voter turnout was so low. With a district of 1,300 kids, there should have been more parents coming out to vote."
He said the board will wait for the council's recommendations on the budget. Reich said he appreciates the fact that the council members have a good understanding of the school budget and the state's new school funding formula.
"The best thing that could happen is for people to come out to ourmeetings and tell us why they voted it down. I mean be honest with us. That's all we're looking for.We can't anticipate what's in the minds of the voters," Reich said. "We worked very hard to create a tight budget, one that would address the concerns of parents and teachers. I thought we had, but apparently we missed something."
DeFonzo said although he was very disappointed that voters rejected the tax levy, he was even more disappointed at the fact that so few people went to the polls.
"This kills me," he said. "It happens in the municipal election and in the school election. We had less than 10 percent of voters turn out to the polls.We didn't even get the parents of the kids in the schools to vote."
DeFonzo said he is hoping the budget survives the review process and is approved as it was presented, but acknowledged that "here again, we're ramming something down the public's throat that they have already voted down."
School leaders dejected by rejection of budget
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
FREEHOLD - The Freehold Borough K-8 School District's budget is now in the hands of the Borough Council.
By a margin of 24 votes in the April 15 school election, voters said no to a $7.8million tax levy that the Board of Education proposed to raise to support a 2008-09 school year budget totaling $19.6 million.
The budget proposed to raise the local school tax rate by 2.4 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $257,000 would have paid $62 more in K-8 school taxes in 2008-09, compared to 2007-08.
The tax levy was defeated by a count of 240 no votes to 216 yes votes. By law, the Borough Council will now review the proposed budget and may recommend changes in the proposed tax levy. The council has the option to leave the tax levy as the board proposed it or to take no action, which was the case several years ago with another defeated tax levy.
If the council fails to certify a school tax levy by mid-May the budget will go to the state Department of Education for review.
The voters' rejection of what school administrators said was a carefully crafted budget struck a blow at the district offices.
Superintendent of Schools Elizabeth O'Connell said she could not explain why the turnout was so low on Election Day. She said she could not pin the defeat on any one thing.
"I don't understand it," she said "Last year we were cutting positions and had a higher tax increase. This year we were restoring positions and lowering the tax increase. I only wish I knew why it was defeated."
School district Business Administrator Veronica Wolf said the council members "can choose to accept the budget as is and certify the tax levy or they can chose to reduce the tax levy by cutting some items. But they must outline where they are taking the cuts from and they must state in a resolution that the reductions will not affect our ability to provide a thorough and efficient education and that the cuts will not affect the stability of our school district for long-range planning purposes."
The third option is for the council to fail to certify the tax levy and pass it on to the county superintendent of schools and thereafter to the New Jersey commissioner of education.
Action must be taken by the council by May 19.
School administrators were in a much better frame of mind after the 2007 election when voters delivered a double victory to the board.
By a count of 357 to 299, a tax levy of $7.4 million was approved to support the $16.7 million 2007-08 school budget.
And, by a count of 342 to 314, voters approved a second ballot question to raise an additional $75,275 in local taxes to be used for school-sponsored athletics and extracurricular activities.
In April 2006, voters rejected the proposed tax levy and two referendum questions that would have provided additional space in borough schools.
The board sought approval for a $15.6 million budget for the 2006-07 school year, but voters said no to the $7million tax levy to support that budget. The vote was 543 no votes to 269 yes votes.
Voters rejected the two referendum questions by the following counts: 585 no votes to 261 yes votes, and 591 no votes to 229 yes votes.
After reviewing the budget the council passed a resolution seeking theMonmouth County superintendent's review of the school budget. The 2006-07 budget was then approved by the council as it had been proposed by the board.
In the 2005 school election, voters approved the 2005-06 budget by a count of 223 to 187.
In addition to rejecting the proposed tax levy for 2008-09, voters on April 15 returned three incumbents to the board. James Keelan (296 votes), Andrew De- Fonzo (282 votes) and Adam Reich (277 votes) ran unopposed for three-year terms.
In considering the rejection of the tax levy Keelan acknowledged the voters' "frustration" with the government and the high taxes they pay in New Jersey.
"Unfortunately for the schools, the closest place to take out these frustrations is the board of education budget," Keelan said. "It also did not help that the state set the election date for April 15, the day your federal taxes are due, too. We tried to let the community know that even if our budget passed, and even with our additional $1.5million increase in state aid, we would still be $3 million below the level (defined by the state) that is required to fund our schools."
Reich said he was "obviously disappointed that the budget was defeated and also that the voter turnout was so low. With a district of 1,300 kids, there should have been more parents coming out to vote."
He said the board will wait for the council's recommendations on the budget. Reich said he appreciates the fact that the council members have a good understanding of the school budget and the state's new school funding formula.
"The best thing that could happen is for people to come out to ourmeetings and tell us why they voted it down. I mean be honest with us. That's all we're looking for.We can't anticipate what's in the minds of the voters," Reich said. "We worked very hard to create a tight budget, one that would address the concerns of parents and teachers. I thought we had, but apparently we missed something."
DeFonzo said although he was very disappointed that voters rejected the tax levy, he was even more disappointed at the fact that so few people went to the polls.
"This kills me," he said. "It happens in the municipal election and in the school election. We had less than 10 percent of voters turn out to the polls.We didn't even get the parents of the kids in the schools to vote."
DeFonzo said he is hoping the budget survives the review process and is approved as it was presented, but acknowledged that "here again, we're ramming something down the public's throat that they have already voted down."