School board outlines budget
Officials say new state cap law could be trouble
BY MELISSA CIFELLI
Staff Writer

CHRIS KELLY staff North Brunswick’s Faberge VanDyke, 2, shares a moment with Santa Claus during Winter Wonderland, held at the North Brunswick Municipal Complex on Dec. 6.

The South Brunswick Board of Education held its first budget meeting Tuesday, outlining the fiscal plan and proposals for the 2005-06 school year.

Citing increased enrollment, the need for expansion, the No Child Left Behind legislation and the constraints of new state school caps law S1701, board members expressed the difficulty and necessity for creating a working budget that meets students needs while not overburdening taxpayers.

Schools Superintendent Dr. Gary McCartney said a school budget was different than a typical expenditure plan. The school budget, according to McCartney, is designed to build the future, and sends a message about what the town values. Those values and messages, McCartney said, are transferred to students.

Board members have to factor in providing the funding necessary to ensure students succeed, McCartney said.

“There is no one-size-fits-all,” approach to creating the budget, McCartney said.

Both the interests of education and those of the taxpayers, according to McCartney, must be met.

“We need to build a budget where both parties feel they have been valued,” McCartney said.

McCartney also said the public as well as the board must recognize the differences between “nice to have” and “need to have” for South Brunswick students.

“Budgets are about ‘need to have’ things,” McCartney said.

Keeping those elements as a philosophy, according to McCartney, the board can justify a budget that meets both student and taxpayer needs.

Assistant Superintendent for Business Jeffrey Scott said the budget approach stays close to enrollment projections.

Enrollment is projected to increase, Scott said, by an additional 226 students for the 2005-06 school year. The projected allocation per pupil have remained relatively static, Scott said.

According to Scott, board members meet with school principals to determine if allocation is adequate to meet student needs.

According to the 2005-06 draft budget, a South Brunswick High School student will need $381.17 for the school year. This allotment includes funding for items such as textbooks, teaching supplies, athletic supplies and library books.

The per pupil allotment for a middle school student is $254.84, and $206.16 for an elementary student.

The budget, Scott said, is based on an average class size of 25 students for grades six through 12, and an average class size of 23 students for kindergarten through fifth grade.

Scott said challenges such as an increase in health benefits despite a lack in state aid make creating a budget particularly difficult.

Over the last 11 years, according to Scott, the board has been successful in creating a budget.

“Each year it doesn’t get any easier,” Scott said.

The school budget caps law and its possible repeal was also a topic for heated discussion at the budget meeting.

The law, passed in June, reduced the annual cap on spending growth from 3 percent to 2.5 percent and reduced the amount of surplus school districts may carry from 6 percent to 3 percent.

Calling it an unfortunate piece of legislation, McCartney said the bill has a misplaced purpose and has created erroneous new caps which reduce a school’s needed reserve.

The reserves, according to McCartney, are used to offset budget increases.

Using portions of a school’s reserves, according to McCartney, will lessen the amount of taxes placed on property owners, who would have otherwise had to pay larger amounts of property tax.

According to McCartney, the bill will create dangerous conditions for some districts as property taxes spike.

According to Scott, the effects of S1701 may force districts to use portions of surplus for expenses such as teacher salaries. The surplus, Scott said, should be used for one-time expenses, as sufficient amounts of it may not be available in the future. Schools, according to Scott, may have to reduce staff or raise property taxes.

“Neither is a good option,” Scot said.

According to Scott, potential amendments to the law by January can help the 2005-06 budget.

Little by little, Scott said, the negative aspects of S1701 will be amended.

Board member Martin Abschutz said he was excited by the amount of people who have shown interest in repealing the law. It is important, Abschutz said, that the public knows about the law, which takes control away from the school district.

“It’s a marathon, not a sprint,” Abschutz said of the process of trying to amend the law.

Abschutz also outlined a timetable for district’s budget process with the next budget committee meeting scheduled for Jan. 11.

Budget meetings should continue into February, but may depend on whether the district receives state aid information, according to Abschutz.

A public hearing on the proposed school budget is scheduled for March 22.