BOE Meeting - Nov 15

[Go Plainedge!]

Hi everyone:

Here are my notes from last nights meeting:

1. Dr. Richman proposed changing the budget vote to be ONLY one vote. He asked the BOE to consider making this change. He said that they work hard in creating the budget and they submit what they believe to be a sound budget. It costs an additional $20,000 and more man hours to vote the second time and he doesn't believe that its worth it. He feels that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they submit the same budget they will be viewed as arrogant and if they reduce the budget they will be told "see there is some fat in that can be cut".

2. They discussed voting on volunteer fireman/ambulance members to be exempt from school tax. These people are already exempt from other local taxes. The administration said that the number of households that this would apply to would be 40 with a total amount of $6,593 (according the Nassau County). The burden would then get divided up among the 13,000 parcels in the community. The volunteers would have to be currently active for the past 5 years.

3. They are waiting on the engineers report for Packard to see if they can finalize the Boces deal or a deal with the town.

4. The Packard equipment (desks, kilns, microwaves, etc) is not tallied and they are looking into selling these items at auction or possible donation. The total book value is approximately $100,000. The street value is unknown at this point in time as the desks (approx $63,000) are outdated and no school seems to want to buy them. The BOE vice president suggested to donate them to a school in LA effected by the hurricane.

5. Dr. Richman also asked the BOE to consider allowing a local company to advertise in the HS Gym. He was approached by a local insurance company to pay $500 to hang a banner in the gym during basketball season.

Those are the more important points I came away with. Anyone want to add to this?

Of course I have several opinions about this that I will discuss at a later date.

[elphaba65]

Go Plainedge:

Thanks for the update.

They discussed voting on volunteer fireman/ambulance members to be exempt from school tax. These people are already exempt from other local taxes. The administration said that the number of households that this would apply to would be 40 with a total amount of $6,593 (according the Nassau County). The burden would then get divided up among the 13,000 parcels in the community. The volunteers would have to be currently active for the past 5 years.


While I think volunteer fireman/ambulance workers provide a noble service, I don't agree with giving them a break on their school taxes at our expense. Has anyone been reading the series in Newsday about volunteer fire departments? I never knew the donation I give every year pays for their vacations and other perks, which I think is absolutely appalling and downright fraudulent. It may be 40 people this year, but what if it grows to 50 or 60 next year? If we give these volunteers a break what next? Will the BOE vote next to give themselves a tax break because they are volunteers and provide a noble service too? Oh wait, one of the current BOE members will get a fireman exemption if they vote to approve this. Oh, not to much of a conflict of interest here right?

[Go Plainedge!]

Elpha:

Someone else mentioned this to me last night....

Do you know how much your school tax liability is? Does the county dollar amount make sence to you?

Think carefully and take a look at your recent tax statement that outlines your school tax amount. I think the "county numbers" are incorrect in terms of the dollar amount.

[elphaba65]

Go Plainedge,

Will pull my tax bills tonight and get back to you.

[reddevil]

Volunteer Fireman/Ambulance workers provide a noble service - this is very true. They don't do it for a tax break. I think trying to add that in as a benefit is ridiculous. One thing it would do for sure is add another cut to an already splintered community. Plainedge already has an identity crisis, we don't need any more issues to add animosity to our little district.

[justfacts]

It's from a long e-mail to some others, but I though you might like to see a breakdown of just how many dollars less the Firemen/Ambulance Volunteers have to pay in property tax for a year's worth of volunteer activity.

==================================================
Hi "X" - and all others,
(And congratulations to David M. on his return to office!)

This is in response to your e-mail exchanges with the School District over the Fireman's exemption. The number's they quoted to you as to cost of these exemptions to other taxpayers is approximately right - but not exact.

The School supplied information about Fireman's reduction in taxes is best analyzed as follows;
1) Given: 40 residents receive a total of $6,593 in assessed value exemptions (or $164.83 each).
2) Since this is a reduction of 10% in their home's assessed valuation, we then know that their home is fully assessed at an average of $1,648.30 each.

(The "average home" is actually assessed by the Town on your Tax Bill at $1,709.41 this year)

3) The Town supplied School Tax Rate for this year is: $335.0710 per hundred of assessed value.
4) That comes to an average School tax bill of $5,522.98 for each Fireman without the deduction.

(The "average home" School Tax for this year is $5,727.74 as derived from your Town Tax Bill)

5) These 40 Firemen would have had to pay 40 x $5,522.98 each, or $220,919.01 total.
6) Instead of paying that total, they have to pay 10% less, or ($220,919.01 - $22,091.90) = $198,827.11

7) That is $4,970.68 each has to pay, not $5,522.98 each - an average of $552.30 less than other taxpayers.

8) The total of $22,091.90 deducted from their combined taxes has to be paid by the other residents.
9) If the amount is $3.80 for the "average homeowner" as given by the School District; that means there are $22,091.90/$3.80 other homeowners in the School District.

10) That number comes to 5,813.658 other homes (5,814), or 5,854 total homes in the district.
Other calculations(*) show that there are 6,168 homes in the district.

So, It's close - but there are discrepancies between the results of the numbers given for this exemption and other Average number of homes given in other documents by the School District. The discrepancy amounts to a 314 home difference, or a 5.4% error between the two School District numbers.

Hey, but who the heck can accurately count the number of homes in this District anyhow?

And; to quote from Jeff Burns(**) ~~~ 5.4% is "just a minor arithmetic error!". What's that amount to anyway? (About $3.1 Million on this year's "Austerity" budget, that's all!)

(*) (From 2005/6 Budget, page 24 "Average Home Assessment") ~ And as derived from this year's School tax bill.
(**) In a sworn Affidavit to the Commissioner of Education about a $1.2 Million total vs a $1.8 Million total in the excess of Revenues over Expenses for the School District last year. That's right! - Last year, the School District "took in" via taxes, $1.8 Million more than they spent!


Regards to all - and a Happy Thanks ~ g.i.v.i.n.g.! [e-mail] 516-249-9308 516-694-6440

=============================================================

[justfacts]

With regards to our tax liabilities and deciphering our School Tax Bills - If there is enough interest (say 20 or more residents) - I'll schedule a meeting with the Bethpage Library in their comfortable Auditorium with a full movie screen sized "Power-Point" presentation on the topic called; "Sucking the most info from your tax bill as you can" AKA as "How to check out your Tax Bill"

Anyone interested can e-mail me at;

[e-mail]

I'll let all know how the interest is going.

[Go Plainedge!]

OK...here are my thoughts and opinions from the Nov 15th Board Meeting......


1. I normally would like the idea of a single vote. Heck it works for the government, why not a school budget. HOWEVER, based on the sensitive situation we are dealing with this year (contingency budget, cut programs, etc.) I don't think this is the year to be deciding to one allow a single vote. If I were a board member I would be concerned that the public may not approve the budget in 2006 and without a second opportunity to vote have more BOE animosity than ever before. Perhaps this is an item that is best considered for 2007.

2. I don't care for this exemption program. As much as I am very grateful for ANYONE that volunteers to better serve the public, I don't feel this should be the board's decision on how I should show my appreciation for the local fire/ambulance volunteers. I make a very nice donation to the fire department every year. I shouldn't be told that I have to increase that donation. Mr. Presuto was quite anxious to spend my money. I give credit to Loretta, Douglas and Cathy for strongly questioning and doubting this item as well as requesting further and more accurate information.

4. The Packard equipment - can someone tell me why we needed new desks for the middle school? Have kids changed that these old desks couldn't have been used? Do they no longer fit? Are the desks in that bad of condition that they couldn't have been brought to the new school? If their condition is that terrible, then why are we trying to sell/auction them? Not to mention the washing machine(s), microwave ovens, kilns, file cabinets, etc. Then the district admins wonder why the community labels them as wasteful.

5. As much as I love being a capitalist, I don't like the idea of advertising in the gym. We live in a world that is surrounded by branding and advertising. A high school gym should be one of the locations that remains neutral. Yes, one can argue about the soda machines, however they at least are serving a purpose. A banner serves no purpose.

Anyone else have any thoughts or opinions?

[justfacts]

Go Plainedge! ~

The issue of just one vote is an arbitrary and capricious one the has often been stated by the BOE before (and sometimes immediately after) the first Budget vote takes place. It is served up almost as an ultimatum prior to the budget vote.

This was true in the 2000 budget vote, and, after that count and defeat of the first budget, absolutely confirmed by the President of the BOE.

They had an "emergency meeting" called on the spot that night ~ and declared to the community attending the vote counting session that there would be no second vote. "You failed to pass our Budget, so we are going to an austerity budget" - was the result reported by the BOE president of the BOE's "considered decision" that night. Emphatically! - "NO SECOND VOTE ~ AUSTERITY!"

Days later, we were informed that there would be a second vote. (The reduced budget put up in the second vote passed that year)

The NY State Education Law was recently changed as a result of BOE's throughout the State continuing to put up the same budget time and time again after its initial defeat. Voters were in effect "disenfranchised" of their initial votes and became fewer and fewer in every repetition of voting on the same budget in the same year. Eventually, the budget was passed in most instances - despite the first time budget vote results.

To counteract that farce then called "voting" the Legislature put a limit of two on the number of allowed votes. This was done under the assumption that it would kill off the practice of repeatedly submitting the same budget to the public vote after vote until it passed.

The second vote was thought of as giving the District a chance to put before the public a less desirable (to the BOE), but tighter, budget that the public might approve ~ before forcing the adoption of the very tight Budget increase allowed under Contingency Budgeting Caps on spending.

So ~ my response to the "One Vote only" position of the BOE is ~ Legislation has been approved that says there should be (unfortunately, not the words "must be") two votes! - Therefore, give this District what should be allowed! Stop this petty and childishly petulant business of threatening the community about its voting rights to a second vote and behave in an adult manner with respect to the voting process.

Prepare the best budget you can (one that closely matches next year's perceived needs increase against the community's ability to pay) If it done well, the community might appreciate and understand what a good budget effort it is and pass it on the first try. Take that chance!

But, if that first budget does fail, then go to a second intermediate position between the failed budget request and a Contingency Budget allowance.

If that Second budget level of increase also fails then we are at a Contingency level of budget increase for the coming year. (This Contingency Budgeting is no way a CUT level of budget operation - it is always and INCREASED level of budget operation!)

In two words - Grow up! In three words - Act as adults!

In more words - Let us all make the best use of the Budgeting/Voting process that we can, so that the Children receive the most from the limited funding increases at our disposal.

[Go Plainedge!]

Just.....

But it could be argued that this process would force the efforts to create an ACCURATE and sound budget the first time. The people in the community have stated that they are willing to fail ANY budget presented (1st or second time) no matter the consequences. If the budget was sound, it would have passed.

So I think this process can work for both sides. Will it force (or threaten) the community? Yes. Will it force the BOE to "get it right" and "get in touch"? Yes. Will it also create more finger pointing if failed? YES! If that's the chance 7 people are willing to take - Go For It!

Again, 2006 is not the year to do it. I'm all for it in 2007. I like change. Change helps people and communities grow; either through mistakes or through positive and successful accomplishments.

[justfacts]

Go Plainedge! ~ and all,

I never thanked you for the report on the last meeting so here goes a big THANK YOU!

With regard to the one vote discussion at the meeting, if you go to last year's mailing to homes about the budget - on page three there is this writing:

"If defeated, would the budget be presented to the community for another vote?
That decision rests with the Board of Education. However, it costs the District approximately $8,000 to hold each election. Given the financial straits we are facing, that fact certainly has to be considered."

Whether the cost of a second vote is actually $8,000 or is actually $20,000, it would seem to be a small cost if the result of a second vote would enable a considerably larger amount of money to be approved for Programs portion of the budget than the alternative - a Contingency Budget.

Since the Capital costs are fixed and unchanged under a Contingency budget, it is only the Programs and Administration that bear the brunt of the smaller increases allowed.

When the second budget option is exercised, Capital expenditures can also be reviewed and adjusted - as could have been done last year for the $390,000 Packard fund transfer.

If that fund transfer action was delayed and the second budget Capital part reduced by the $390,000 (which happened anyhow) - then the second budget, even if only reduced by $390,000 - might have passed!

I don't believe that the value judgment for a second vote should be just looked at from the quite variable cost figures given alone. Rather it should also be looked at from the benefits that might be achieved - a few million more dollars that would go into Programs portion of the budget if the second vote passes the budget. [/i]

Last year did give us a striking example of how a second budget could have been adjusted and passed if the Capital portion of the budget was reduced.

The funny thing is that the prior year also had almost the same example when the other part of the Packard Fund was transferred. It to, went into the Capital portion of the budget. Had it not been put up to be transferred, the first budget would have been $600,000 lower! That's more than the reduction provided under the revised second budget![/i]

Incidentally - that $600,000 did NOT go towards a property tax reduction as stated in a mailer sent to all our homes. It went into the Capital portion of the budget as a fund transfer for buying air conditioners.

It's time that the BOE clearly stated these transfers to the public, and notifies the public that they are voting on these transfers as well as the budget, well before the vote actually takes place.

[Go Plainedge!]

As far as the second vote:

Dr. Richman had mentioned that they have talked about it in the past and then gave in. He asked the BOE to vote in the issue and to stick by it.

He also stated that he knows a 12 %++ budget will not get passed in this community. I think the plan is to submit a budget just under that and take the "gamble" that it will pass on the first vote because of the current situation.

How will the parents of graduating seniors vote in 2006? Some may not have a student in the system any longer and might now focus on their property taxes.

Only time will tell.

[justfacts]

Regarding a 12% + Budget increase -

The problem the public has is not so much the Budget Expense increase - it is with the consequent Property tax increase!

It would be nice if they went hand-in-hand ~ ~ ~ a N% Expense increase means that the Property tax increase is N%. However, using last year and the year before as "models" it means that the percentage Property tax increase is larger than the percentage Expense increase.

Case in point: (Using School District supplied numbers):
Last year, a requested 8.36% increase in Expenses resulted in a 13.38% Property tax increase on an "Average" house in Plainedge.

Proving the point:
Go to page 24 of their draft proposed Budget and find that they considered an average house to have a $5,335.47 property tax of the year before go up to $6,049.24 if that budget passed. That's a $713.77 increase - which works out to a 13.38% jump in property tax.

Despite that calculation which was buried in the back pages of the proposed budget, the summary page (page 13) of the same budget document claimed the property tax receipts would only go up 6.93%!

Numbers lie? Liars using numbers? - NO! The difference is that the Summary page falsely implied that $1,090,000 was going towards a reduction in Property taxes ~ ~ ~ when, in reality, $390,000 of that amount was going to a Fund Balance Transfer (if voters approved it)

The $3.6 Million Expense increase had this $0.4 Million added to it and another $0.6 Million had to be made up from the lesser State tax receipts. That's really a total of $4.6 Million more in spending that had to come from the only source of tax money we care about - the public's pockets! No way is that just a 6.93% increase as shown!

Any Plainedge resident that just looks at the Percent figures given in the proposed Budget, and doesn't critically examine the whole budget, will be in for a shock when the Tax bill comes from the Town!

Last year's Spending Mandate from the District in both proposed budgets said - "You will pay a 13.38% Property tax increase, $713.77 more than the year before!" Even if these numbers were buried back on page 24 - and the actual percentage conveniently not calculated!

A rule of thumb from last year ~ the percentage that Property taxes go up is about half again the amount of the percentage Expense increase!

If followed this year - a 12% Expense increase would lead to a 18% property tax increase!

Think of those numbers when reviewing the upcoming proposed budget!