POPLAR RIDGE - A discussion on the 2009-10 academic budget sparked a heated and tense debate among Southern Cayuga Central School District Board of Education members during its meeting Monday.
Following a budget presentation from business administrator Martha Stevermer, during which she unveiled the first drafts of six budget areas, board member Joe Lonsky made a motion to cap the tax levy at the 2008-09 number, $6,738,353.90, reflecting a 0 percent increase.
In the event a smaller amount of money would be required for the fiscal year, Lonsky proposed the surplus be utilized to establish an alternative energy program for the Poplar Ridge campus. Additionally, he proposed any tax revenue gained from new construction be put into a “rainy day” fund and if the funds remain untouched, be applied to alternative energy.
He called the measure “a line in the sand,” but several of his fellow board members disagreed and criticized it as “irresponsible.”
The motion was eventually defeated after a lengthy debate with Lonsky, Jim Wilcox and board President Leonard Jordan for it and Steve Morse, Dean Winspear, Ted Rejman and Teresa Lipfert against. Thus far, Stevermer has presented to the board the first blushes of several budget areas - operations and maintenance, transportation, psychologist, guidance, health services, kindergarten screening, computer aided instruction, library, administration and staff development - but not all of them, including one of the largest budget pieces, instructional staff.
Lonsky said it is important for people who may be attending an open forum on the budget March 2 as well as all district taxpayers to know definitively where the board stands on next year's tax levy. He added that a 0 percent increase would also give Superintendent Mary Kay Worth guidance as she and Stevermer formulate the spending plan.
“We have to take a stand,” he said. “There are going to be strong arguments for increasing it, and there are going to be strong arguments to lower it.”
Worth respectfully asked the board to wait until the budget process - which is well ahead of schedule - is complete.
“I think we are being extremely responsible,” she said, adding that, though the state did not adopt a 4 percent property tax cap, school superintendents knew they would be “committing suicide” if they proposed a tax levy increase above that percentage. The tax levy the district would propose, she said, would most likely be under that number.
“I can get you there,” she said. “We're between 1 and 2 percent right now. It's a hard one, but you need to see all the pieces associated and why they are happening.”
Southern Cayuga and every school district in the state are eyeing next year's budget closely as it is grappling with a potentially substantial reduction in state aid. It is currently unclear if and how much money would be applied to education aid from the federal stimulus plan.
Based upon preliminary numbers presented by Worth during the Feb. 3 community forum, if the district proposed a budget of $15,993,000 with no tax levy increase, it will have to find $716,000. On the other hand, a proposed budget of $16,263,000 that carries a 4 percent tax levy increase would require the district to find $582,000.
School boards typically adopt a budget in April and put it up for taxpayer approval in May, this year, May 19.
Morse, Lipfert and Rejman derided the motion as premature and fiscally irresponsible as the board has not yet seen and discussed the full budget.
Lipfert said the March 2 meeting is an information session, not a budget hearing, and “it's irresponsible to throw out any number.”
“There are a lot of people looking for fiscal responsibility,” she said. “That's not fiscal responsibility. We can't make a decision based upon a number. We make a decision based up on the best interests of our children.”
Morse appeared to get so frustrated with the discussion that he turned to Jordan and said, “Can we move on from this, please? Can you please take control of your meeting?”
He complained about the way Lonsky presented the motion and how the board had no time to review it.
“I typically like to do my homework,” he said, “and I haven't done my homework with this number.”
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
In the event a smaller amount of money would be required for the fiscal year, Lonsky proposed the surplus be utilized to establish an alternative energy program for the Poplar Ridge campus. Additionally, he proposed any tax revenue gained from new construction be put into a “rainy day” fund and if the funds remain untouched, be applied to alternative energy.
He called the measure “a line in the sand,” but several of his fellow board members disagreed and criticized it as “irresponsible.”
The motion was eventually defeated after a lengthy debate with Lonsky, Jim Wilcox and board President Leonard Jordan for it and Steve Morse, Dean Winspear, Ted Rejman and Teresa Lipfert against. Thus far, Stevermer has presented to the board the first blushes of several budget areas - operations and maintenance, transportation, psychologist, guidance, health services, kindergarten screening, computer aided instruction, library, administration and staff development - but not all of them, including one of the largest budget pieces, instructional staff.
Lonsky said it is important for people who may be attending an open forum on the budget March 2 as well as all district taxpayers to know definitively where the board stands on next year's tax levy. He added that a 0 percent increase would also give Superintendent Mary Kay Worth guidance as she and Stevermer formulate the spending plan.
“We have to take a stand,” he said. “There are going to be strong arguments for increasing it, and there are going to be strong arguments to lower it.”
Worth respectfully asked the board to wait until the budget process - which is well ahead of schedule - is complete.
“I think we are being extremely responsible,” she said, adding that, though the state did not adopt a 4 percent property tax cap, school superintendents knew they would be “committing suicide” if they proposed a tax levy increase above that percentage. The tax levy the district would propose, she said, would most likely be under that number.
“I can get you there,” she said. “We're between 1 and 2 percent right now. It's a hard one, but you need to see all the pieces associated and why they are happening.”
Southern Cayuga and every school district in the state are eyeing next year's budget closely as it is grappling with a potentially substantial reduction in state aid. It is currently unclear if and how much money would be applied to education aid from the federal stimulus plan.
Based upon preliminary numbers presented by Worth during the Feb. 3 community forum, if the district proposed a budget of $15,993,000 with no tax levy increase, it will have to find $716,000. On the other hand, a proposed budget of $16,263,000 that carries a 4 percent tax levy increase would require the district to find $582,000.
School boards typically adopt a budget in April and put it up for taxpayer approval in May, this year, May 19.
Morse, Lipfert and Rejman derided the motion as premature and fiscally irresponsible as the board has not yet seen and discussed the full budget.
Lipfert said the March 2 meeting is an information session, not a budget hearing, and “it's irresponsible to throw out any number.”
“There are a lot of people looking for fiscal responsibility,” she said. “That's not fiscal responsibility. We can't make a decision based upon a number. We make a decision based up on the best interests of our children.”
Morse appeared to get so frustrated with the discussion that he turned to Jordan and said, “Can we move on from this, please? Can you please take control of your meeting?”
He complained about the way Lonsky presented the motion and how the board had no time to review it.
“I typically like to do my homework,” he said, “and I haven't done my homework with this number.”
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 7 comment(s)
rbcma85 wrote on Feb 24, 2009 5:23 PM:
a.mom wrote on Feb 24, 2009 1:21 PM:
The district has to focus on the priority of educating our children to compete in the big world. While the extras are nice, when I hear from kids visiting back in the district how woefully unprepared they were to compete with new classmates in college, I grow fearful for our kids' future.
EVERYONE is having to give up the extras at every level, our children must do so as well because the priority has to be educating them. They need to be able to handle what the world is going to be throwing at them. "
thinksensibly wrote on Feb 24, 2009 1:15 PM:
Maybe a fee associated with these activities isn't such a bad idea in order to keep them.
The bottom line is the school doesn't have the money in their budget and in the near future, isn't going to have it. Cuts MUST be made.. somewhere, somehow and in a way that still provides for high standards (hopefully higher than they are currently) of education and the safety of our children. "
rad1234 wrote on Feb 24, 2009 12:48 PM:
But neither can you de-value extra-curriculur activities. The advantages to art, music, and sports are immeasurable to a child's social, psychological, and educational well-being. For years, educators and parents have been attesting to the great benefits that these activities provide. No longer are their advantages uncertain or unknown.
In light of the current economic crisis, should we consider a fee associated with them? Perhaps. But should we consider art, music, and sports luxuries that should be completely done away with? No way. That is not a way to, as Think Sensibly says we must, "focus on our children." "
thinksensibly wrote on Feb 24, 2009 8:59 AM:
I fear that the only solution (for now) will be to "strip" the school of the "extras" (extracurricular activities and the like). Focus on the primary education and safety (transportation) of our children for right now.
We shouldn't be in a position where we have to do that to our children, but if cuts need to be made, unfortunately, that's where we need to start. The laws provide for our children's EDUCATION.. no law says our school has to have extracurricular activities (music, etc.) "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Feb 24, 2009 7:36 AM:
teacher1 wrote on Feb 24, 2009 5:16 AM: