Posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
School District Budget - Online tools to submit comments
Thanks to everyone who was able to attend the Community Forum on the budget this past Wednesday. The district now has a survey and a blog for submitting comments on the budget - click here to go to the district home page to take the quick one question survey and submit your comments.
Next Steps - Design!
For those of you that could not make Rhinebeck Associates presention of the the Middle School Feasibility Study, click here for the power point.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
7%
Due to state budget woes, the school budget process schedule will be much earlier this year. Last Wednesday (February 4), Superintendent Rice presented her draft budget at the board of education meeting. The summary and power point are now posted on the district website.
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)