School District Considers Cutting Busing, Athletic Subsidy (NJ)
May 17, 2010
As budget approval gets closer in the school district, it is clear that no one is happy — neither the superintendent, the Board of Education, the teachers, the staff nor parents.
The board has to approve its 2010-11 budget before the fiscal year starts July 1.
One thing was certain at Monday’s board meeting: No one likes the way the future look s in the district.
Several parents made it clear to school Supt. John Savel and the board that they are not happy with what they are doing.
Although some said they understand the economic conditions, they pleaded with the board not to make cuts they say will impact their children most.
Elementary classroom sizes, busing and athletics were among the items parents wanted untouched. And, teachers and support personnel were reminding the board of cuts they have taken in the past.
The district can make it through the 2010-11 school year, but it can’t make it through 2011-12 if things stay the same, Savel said.
The board must consider the uncertainty of state funding, declining student enrollment, declining property values and other factors that can reduce school funding while it prepares a budget.
The board must seriously look beyond June 30, 2011, Savel said.
The crux of the problem is not within the district, Savel told the parents Monday. The problem, he said, is that the state is not adequately funding public education.
This is not a Trenton Public Schools problem — it is a problem in school districts across the state, he said.
Many cost-saving measures were discussed by the board as it is reviewing the 2010-11 budget, and just how much the district would save on each item.
Parents, teachers and staff had issues with many items discussed for possible cuts.
Crossing Fort Street and Van Horn Road is too dangerous and busing shouldn’t be cut, some parents said.
<br /> ;
Eliminating general education busing would save the district about $160,000, Savel said. Some of that savings would be used to pay for private busing to transport students to athletic events and field trips.
Not all busing would be eliminated, however. By law, the district must provide special education busing or hire a company to do it, he said.
The district could save $406,460 a year by eliminating the athletic subsidy, Savel said.
If that happened, athletics would have to be self- funding, either through fundraising or increased pay-to-participate fees.
This year, high school students pay $100 per sport to participate and middle school students pay $50.
Without the subsidy, the cost would go up by $389.33 per sport, Savel said. That brought groans from many in the audience.
Schools of choice, a topic most people in the district have opposed, also came up.
If the board opted to become a schools-of-choice district, there are a few openings in fifth grade and several at the high school, Savel said. He did not recommend schools of choice for the high school.
He also said the district would only receive the state allowance from the district where the students lives, not what it gets from residents because of a hold-harmless millage.
Trenton receives $9,031 in per-pupil state funding, one of the highest in the Downriver area. Per-pupil funding ranges from about $7,316 to $9,206 Downriver.
The district has room for 10 fifth-graders. Using an average per-pupil allowance of $7,800, Savel estimated that those 10 students would gene rate $78,000. If split grades were eliminated, it would create room for 16 more students, bringing in another $124,000.
If a fourth-grade teacher is added, that would make room for 20 more students, generating $156,000.
Closing the Arthurs Middle School pool for one year would save $100,000, Savel said. Some parents asked if it could be kept open during the swim season.
It would be too costly to drain the pool each year because the walls would have to be reinforced and it would eat up the savings, Savel said. And, the middle school uses the pool for physical education classes and would have to change its curriculum.
District enrollment is declining, he said. Right now, 110 kindergartners are enrolled at Anderson Elementary School for next year, for example, Savel said. The district was anticipating 160. Savel said he believes there will be more, but right now the numbers are down.
(RELATED STORY)
TRENTON — As the Board of Education is preparing its budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year, bigger concerns are looming.
In addition to budget cuts, the district’s hold-harmless millage — which generates about $1.5 million a year — expires next year. Hold-harmless money helps to make up for losses through the state’s Proposal A.
If the district wants to continue receiving the hold-harmless funds, it must go to voters and seek a renewal for the 2.7953 mills.
The board is weighing using $2.3 million, the bulk of the district’s fund balance, to avoid more cuts in the 2010-11 budget.
If it chooses that option, the district would end the fiscal year wit h a $170,000 fund balance, an amount trustees agreed is not enough.
“We can buy ourselves one year,” Trustee Dennis Bearden said. “If nothing changes, we’ll be in the same place (next year).”
He said he is keenly aware that the board needs to look beyond the 2010-11 budget.
The district is operating on a $27 million budget. It has 350 employees and 2,884 students, and receives $9,031 in per-pupil state aid for the 2009-10 school year. It is projecting about 80 fewer students next year.
Bearden wants enough money in the fund balance so as the district waits for state funding to come in, it does not have to borrow money to meet payroll and pay the bills. He believes that is about $1 million.
The district’s annual payroll is more than $24.2 million, including Social Security and retirement costs, school Supt. John Savel said.
What school officials are trying to determine is how much money they will need to cover the gap between making payroll and paying the bills, and receiving state funding and grants, Savel said.
“Obviously, we’re in a crisis mode,” Bearden said.
The district faces many uncertainties in funding, including declining enrollment, declining property values and reduced state aid, Savel said. The state has promised certain amounts in state aid and then midway through the year reduces it, further hampering budgeting, he said.
In addition to state funding cuts, the district also lost state 20j funds, which was supplemental money to hold-harmless districts such as Trenton.
The district’s hold-harmless millage has generated $15 mil lion over 10 years, Trustee Bruce Wyke said.
“That is 15 to 20 positions the citizens directly pay for,” Wyke said. “We’re in a very delicate time. There is a lot more at risk.”
Trustee Cristine Howe said the board isn’t communicating to the public how dire the situation is.
“I think it will be a tough sell to take $1 million off this budget,” she said.
Savel said he would work on another budget draft with $1 million less.
The budget has to be approved by June 30, the end of this fiscal year.
(RELATED STORY)
TRENTON — There is a funding problem in the district, and it is not the fault of the Trenton Public Schools, Supt. John Savel said.
With reductions in state funding compounded over the last few years, coupled with the state of the economy, the district is struggling, he said.
“The state of Michigan does not fund education properly, and because of this we must cut our expenses to match our income,” Savel said.
Some parents are not happy with proposed cuts and have come to school board meetings to let the board and Savel know they are not happy.
“Our public schools need a sound financial plan, one that will not change each year but instead allows the schools to truly plan for the future,” Savel said.
Districts must know how much state funding they will receive, he said. When a district determines an annual budget, based on projected state funding, and then the state funding is cut, it is a problem, he said.
That is not a problem with the district, it is a problem with the state’s funding system, Savel said.
The plan to fix state funding must involve long-term, sustainable and predictable school funding, he said.
“Proposal A worked during a robust economy,” Savel said. “It does not work in today’s economy.
“We need our state Legislature to work together and create a funding system to replace the Proposal A system and all of its broken promises.”
He said the state Legislature needs to find a solution to many issues, including:
The negative fiscal impact of declining enrollment, because state funding is based on student enrollment.
The shifting student populations.
Public employee health care costs.
Public employee pension programs.