Board of Education Officials Discuss Budget at Meeting

Board of Education officials said at last night's budget meeting that next year's figures will remain problematic until March 18, and local officials will learn from state authorities on that date what they can and cannot do to make ends meet.

Board President Roger Rogalin called the current budget process "a moving target this year, in particular, because of the new administration and their fairly agressive approach to fixing the state's fiscal status."

Consequently, a Power Point presentation by board Finance Committee Chairman Jonathan Chatinover was largely a duplication of his Feb. 8 presentation. But the larger audience of 60 residents prompted greater discussion of a myriad of possible scenarios.

Chatinover said at the outset the district wanted to protect its "free balance" at two percent. He likened a "free balance" to a savings account used in emergencies. State regulations allow for up to two percent of a school's budget to be added to such an account each year, and Superintendent Jim O'Neill said that two percent is the maximum amount "the district is supposed to carry."

Chatinover said that Governor Chris Christie has indicated that school districts with a remaining free balance of over two percent in their accounts would have state aid reduced by that amount.

"The reduction of the current New Jersey state budget revolves around a school district's free balance," he said.

Chatinover said people could look at the matter in two different ways.

"If a district has been hoarding money, they've been taxing more than they've needed," Chatinover said. "But the state is in effect taking back the money by refusing state aid."

The other way would be to return the excess saving to the local taxpayers.

Business Administrator Ralph Goodwin quickly added that it was a new concept for the state to reduce school funding and then tell a district to spend their savings. Goodwin has made it no secret that this nettles him.

"The state contributes less than ten percent to the operation of our district. The extra savings we've accumulated was not funded by the state, but local taxpayers," he said. "That's my political comment."

Goodwin said Chatham's total free balance was $829,522.

Chatinover said to offset the loss of state funding, the district may be given increased taxing authority.

"What increased taxing authority means is that the state would allow us to ask taxpayers for more money in addition to the four percent cap," he said. A school district can currently ask voters for only a four percent increase over the previous budget.

Chatinover said increased taxes may be permitted in Chatham because of increased enrollment, increased health benefit costs and the loss of state aid. 

"People talk about a "hard cap," he said. "What they're talking about is four percent. It's fixed at that so as not to give the school district any more chance to increase the tax base."

Chatinover said enrollment, benefit cost and state aid loss would not be included in a hard cap. He also said another means to raise money would be to ask the voters for it in a "second question."

Voting on the budget, board members and a possible second question is April 20.

O'Neill said that considering the economy, the board may limit their budget increase to under four percent.

"Instead of the board asking for something in the base-budget question, we might put that in a second question," he said. "Then it's the public deciding if it's important enough. In someway, people would say it's more democratic." 

In response to a question regarding the relatively low cost of educating a student in Chatham when compared to under-achieving urban schools, O'Neill said that other children don't begin school ready to learn how to read and write, nor did they necessarily have the enriching home experiences of Chatham's children.

Rogalin added that underachieving districts must always meet requirements to receive state aid.

"When you go to an underachieving district, there are positions you'd never hear of here," he said. "They have administrative positions esoteric by our standards."

Board member Alan Routh pointed out that if all needed staff members for next year were hired, the tax cap would have to be eight percent.

O'Neill said that  principals were asking for about 18 new staff members. He anticipated one-third being hired.

"The principals were vey responsible," he said. "In normal times, we could have done what they wanted, but it's a public entity and we have an obligation to respect the economic circumstances of the community. So, there has to be some compromise."