UTN-EN: Two Percent is Two Too Much

 To the Editor, Northport Patch:

At the Monday, Feb. 7 Northport-East Northport School District Board of Education meeting, neither the board of trustees nor administration present at the meeting had knowledge of the details of In addition, knowing that Superintendent Marylou McDermott had been formulating the 2011-12 budget since July 2010 and without revealing the details of that budget analysis, the

The proposed tax-cap bill states: The amount of real property taxes that may be levied on behalf of any local government, other than New York City, shall be limited to 2 percent or 120 percent of an increase in the consumer price index, whichever is less.

For 2010 the CPI was 1.5 percent. That means that the maximum increase could be 1.8 percent, not 2 percent. 

When told about one of the important details regarding the property tax cap, Board President Stephen Waldenberg appeared surprised and appreciative of this detail of the proposed property tax cap.

However, this important detail was not incorporated into the budget direction given by the BOE to Superintendent Marylou McDermott during the public portion of the meeting.

Subsequent to the BOE meeting, the superintendent learned that the bill would not be enacted until the 2012-13 academic year. Thus, the budget direction given to the superintendent for 2011-12 to increase the school property tax rate no more than 2 percent was based upon misinformation of the BOE and by the school district administration. 

Essentially, the tax-cap bill as currently drafted is an effective vehicle that can limit the escalation of property taxes in New York State and property tax caps have been successfully implemented by Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey.

The governor’s tax cap is clear and concise. Voters can vote down high school tax budget proposals, and the bill will force the levy to revert to the last year’s level.  As to the impact of any increase in our school taxes, other than 0 percent, Board Vice President Karen Wills stated that she “wanted to lessen the “BURDEN” of anincrease in our school taxes this year as compared to “last year’s BURDEN." 

Obviously, based upon her statement her focus is based on an acceptable tax rate (to the BOE – not the taxpayers) increase, rather than a spending plan that delivers quality education.

Furthermore, as was told to Trustee Wills by myself , the role of the BOE is not to "burden the taxpayers", but to set a "budget at the willingness and ability of the taxpayers." 

I know that the school administration has been feverishly examining every single line item of the budget since July 2010, but there was no discussion of how this work influenced the BOE’s decision to increase school property taxes by no more than 2 percent. 

Based on the lack of specific knowledge of the proposed property tax cap and the failure of the BOE to incorporate specific budget analysis, the direction given to the superintendent to increase school taxes by no more than 2 percent appears to be arbitrary and not based on fact. 

In conclusion, based on the above shortcomings the BOE must include those in the community who have expertise in the budgeting and financial processes and form a “meaningful” Budget and Finance committee.

Thus, the BOE can significantly improve the budgeting and financial process while simultaneously reducing the amount of time they themselves are forced to spend in these areas, in which they lack the necessary skills, by opening the process to those in the community who have the ability to add value and share the work load. 

Thank you,
Jean Baron, 
Vice President, UTN-EN
Northport