Photos
District voters could be asked to shoulder a nearly $58.3 million general fund tax levy for the township's public schools if the tentative budget accepted by the Wall Township Board of Education moves forward.
With county and state deadlines for submission of the spending plan rapidly approaching, the board unanimously approved the proposed $62.7 million budget for the 2012-2013 school year during Tuesday's regular meeting.
As approved, the budget is based on state aid figures for the current 2011-2012 academic year according to a copy of the adopted resolution.
Board Secretary Brian J. Smyth noted that the state Department of Education will not release the state aid funding amounts going to individual school districts in 2012-2013 until the end of this week.
The board-sanctioned budget will be submitted now to the Monmouth County Superintendent of Schools and to the state education department. Though it is still a work in progress, the board must submit its tentative budget to Trenton by March 5, Smyth said.
"We're still working on this budget as a board," Smyth said after the meeting.
The board has until March 27, the date of a scheduled public hearing on the proposed budget, to revise line items within the spending plan, Smyth said.
The timeline for crafting the budget will remain the same as in previous years with a final budget to be presented to the public at the board's April meeting according to Board President John Tavis.
Should that finalized budget exceed the state-mandated two percent cap on the general fund tax levy, taxpayers will be asked to vote upon it as ballot question during the November general elections, Tavis explained.
The board approved a resolution at a Jan. 31 special meeting to move its elections from April to the November general elections. That move came in response to a state law signed by Governor Chris Christie on Jan. 17 that allows school boards to run their elections concurrent with the general elections.
The tentative operating budget of $62,752,230 is $1,713,230 more than the $61,039,000 operating budget now in effect for the 2011-2012 academic year.
The proposed general fund tax levy of $58,297,150 exceeds this school year's general fund tax levy of $56,829,239 by $1,467,911. As proposed, the general fund tax levy is below the state tax levy cap of two percent, Smith noted.
Altogether, the district's tentative budget comes to $67,095,230 according to a copy of the approved resolution. That amount, broken down, includes the $62,752,230 for the operating budget, $3,255,339 for debt service and $1,088,128 in grants and entitlements given to the district.
Tom Coyle
8:34 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Great news for Wall Township yesterday. The NJ Dept of Education allocated an ADDITIONAL $300,000 in State Aid for Wall Township Public Schools. While not exactly a windfall, it is far better than a freeze or a cut.
Tom Coyle
2:44 pm on Wednesday, March 14, 2012
It is the position of Board members Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert, that we are not raising taxes enough! At the Board Budget Presentation last night, they argued that it was irresponsible to not spend every last penny up to maximum allowable increase of 2%. The Board crafted a budget that restored myriad programs, while still prudently staying well below the 2% cap. Unthinkably, Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka and Herbert argued that the additional tax burden created by bringing the levy up to the 2% cap would be easily absorbed by the taxpayers of Wall. It was this kind of thinking that led to 10 years of failed budgets. Apparently, these four still don't get it.
David G. Lucas, Jr.
2:58 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tom- I was at the meeting on Tuesday night. I did not hear Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert take the position "that we are not raising taxes enough", or "that the additional tax burden...would be easily absorbed by the taxpayers of Wall". I heard them take the position that the draft budget increase of 1.74%, as opposed to a budget increase of 2%, results in a loss of $150,000 in potential tax revenue to the District, revenue that could be used to restore other lost programs and positions. I, for one, would like to see the custodians regain their lost 5% pay from last year's budget, and would like to see the current Board go to the 2% budget cap so that our custodians receive their lost pay. Business Administrator Brian Smyth indicated that to go from 1.74% to 2% would cost the average taxpayer $6.00, and I am willing to see my taxes increase by that amount to restore the cutodians' pay, as well as restore other lost programs and positions. Sorry, but I disagree with you.
Jw
8:17 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012
I too was at the meeting and have to say that Mr. Lucus' explanation is a more accurate explanation of the event and discussions. There are a number of programs that our children have lost over the years that should be considered for reinstatement. There have also been some shortfalls experienced as a result of the new block scheduling at the high school that could use these funds to help the children, inluding special needs. Especially for $6 a year. With that said, I would like to see a more detailed breakout of last years budget, this years spend plan and next years budget to really understand the requirements they claim. I commend the program for the implied test score improvements but don't see that as a budget review.
Tom Coyle
8:37 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012
Dave- It was nice to see you at the meeting on Tuesday. I’m not sure what you are in disagreement with. The audio from the meeting is already posted on the Board website. It is a click away to hear Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert, vociferously argue that the tax levy should be increased to the full 2% allowable by law without bringing it to a public vote, as you yourself are doing here. What you fail to mention, in your championing of the custodian’s pay reinstatement, is that it was Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert, who voted to cut the custodian’s salaries last year - when there was no cap on the tax levy increase. What the taxpayers want now is a well thought out plan for sustainability. Not a knee jerk reaction to spend as much money as can be raised right away. That style of planning, brought forth by the likes of Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert, will only lead to a regression to past levels of distrust in, and disdain for, the Board, which brought us ten years of failed budgets.
David G. Lucas, Jr.
12:44 am on Saturday, March 17, 2012
Tom, I am in disagreement with you as you have mischaracterized what occurred on Tuesday.
Additionally, you are incorrect in many of your "facts". On March 29, 2011, at the Budget Hearing, Dr. Habel discussed the impact of the 2% cap. In a 7-0 vote, Cannon, Herbert, Peters, Wild, Wren, Applegate, and Kukucka voted "yes" on the Resolution for Approval of the 2011-2012 Budget. On April 27, 2011, the voters of Wall Township voted to cut the custodian's salaries, and in a second question, voted to save six custodial jobs by raising an additional $324,830 tax levy (ie. above the 2% cap).
Your use of the term "likes of Cannon, etc." is uncalled for. It is a cheap "shot" at four volunteers who have done more for education in Wall Township, at great personal expense, than 99.9% of the residents of Wall. While I know that you disagree with them, they should have your respect and gratitude, and don't deserve to be the object of a smear campaign.
Finally, as I stated on Tuesday, it was Dr. Habel's belief that a 2% cap without public vote would allow the District to plan accordingly on a multi-year basis, rather than on a year to year basis. I agree with Dr. Habel. It is one of the reasons why I disagree with this year's budget being under the 2% cap, rather than at cap, as it's more of the same year by year planning which is not, in your words, "a well thought out plan for sustainability".
Tom Coyle
7:54 am on Friday, March 16, 2012
At any rate, let’s be honest here, Dave. The only reason that the “brain trust” of Cannon, Peters, Kuckucka, and Herbert, has led the charge to “spend all the money we can get our hands on,” is because the well-crafted budget wasn’t their idea. It is simply a poorly designed contrarian position that they have come up with in an effort to recapture their glory days of rubber-stamping Habel’s whims. As for your quote in the Coast Star, “For the first time ever, you guys can do 2 percent with no one looking over your shoulder and no one saying anything,” you fail to realize that the most important people in town are looking over their shoulders – the taxpayers. We are watching now, Dave. The tide has turned in Wall. And, as evidenced by last year’s Board elections, your old way of doing business around here has been roundly rejected.
David G. Lucas, Jr.
10:06 am on Saturday, March 17, 2012
Tom, you want to talk about honesty?
The BOE members that you continually target haven't the slightest interest in receiving credit for any idea. Their only interest is in what's best for the entire District...not one school...not one program...the entire District. Besides, what the heck are you talking about? A school budget is mainly the product of the paid professional employees and administrators. What "idea", advanced by whom, are you so enamored with that you feel that someone wants / deserves credit?
I disagree with you that my "old way of doing business has been rejected". I made decisions in terms of the educational welfare of children. I sought to develop and maintain schools that met the individual needs of all children. I confined my board action to policy making, planning and appraisal. I did not administer the schools, but saw that they were well run. I made no personal promises nor took any private action that compromised the BOE. I did not surrender my independent judgment to special interests or partisan political groups. I supported and protected school personnel in the proper performance of their duties. I held the appropriate matters confidential. I'm sorry that you don't feel that that was the proper way "of doing business around here", but I think you'll find that many disagree with you, including some folks in Trenton.