RSS Feed
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Lindenhurst schools set budget revote for Tues., June 17 A second vote for the Lindenhurst School District budget is scheduled for Tues., June 17. The Lindenhurst School Board met last week and approved a new spending plan that calls for almost $400,000 less in spending than the budget voters rejected May 20. The board spent approximately two hours reviewing options to reduce spending after it voted to put the budget up again for a revote. In the end, trustees voted to eliminate $100,000 for the capital fund and $35,000 for computer switches from the budget. It agreed to eliminate one administrator's position through attrition, saving $100,000. In addition, the district added $100,000 in anticipated revenue to the budget saying negotiations are nearly complete for rental leases on school property, which should generate at least that much more money coming into the district in the coming year. The new spending plan brings the budget down to approximately $133.5 million and reduces the anticipated tax-rate increase to approximately 4.66 percent. Voters had rejected a 5.39 percent increase last month. They currently pay $162.03 per $100 of assessed value for school taxes. Discussions initially centered on whether the district should put up a reduced budget or reintroduce the same budget voters rejected. Trustee Robert Vitiello said the board and community had worked long and hard in putting the budget together and had reduced staff and spending considerably to reach the 5.39 percent increase. He asked that the board consider putting the same budget up again. Supporting that too, was Gary Whiffen, of the Lindenhurst Teachers Association, who said that districts that offer residents a reduced-spending plan, after they reject one budget, set a bad precedent. "If you put it up at a reduced rate, what message are you sending?" Whiffen asked the Board. "Have the courage to put the same budget up again, which was a good one." But the board's majority voted to cut spending, before presenting it to voters again. "We want to be able to go to the public and say we heard you- and listened," explained Phil Renna, the board's president. "Making these decisions about cuts ripped my heart out, but it was the responsible thing to do." The district provided the board and the public with an outline of what would have to be cut under contingency in the event the board decided not to hold a revote or in the event the second budget is rejected. It would have to cut $1.4 million in spending, eliminating the capital fund, more than $360,000 for equipment, $103,000 for new computers, $75,000 for computer switches, $97,500 for public relations, $36,267 for central office salary increases, $27,798 for student agendas, and $43,500 for costs associated with opening the high school pool to the community. In addition, the district will have to charge community groups and athletic clubs for use of school facilities, including school fields. "This would impact my bottom line and I would have to add those costs to registration," said Bob Horn of the Lindenhurst American Little League. "In addition to the regular season, we run a winter clinic at the Middle School, and if we had to pay for those fields, it would be expensive." "Taking anything away from the children is not going to work," said Howard Nygren, another athletic director as discussions got underway about how the district could save money. David Serica, another resident, said the district had to do a better job of selling the budget and getting the vote out. "When you consider that only 3,800 people in this community got out to vote, that's pretty sad," said Serica. Superintendent of Schools Neil Lederer said that he met with 25 community groups, explaining the budget, sent flyers home with students to remind parents to vote and joined with school board trustees to talk up the budget whenever possible. The Superintendent and the board are prohibited by law from telling the public to approve the budget, and can only provide information, however. "I think what we saw was a groundswell to vote down the budget, while the people who have an interest in education sat it out," said Lederer. Trustee Ray Doran said the numbers reflect a troublesome trend. "Last year 3,500 people voted and the budget passed by 300 votes," he said. "This year, 3,800 people voted and the budget failed by 300 votes. That is a swing of 600 votes, and it is a concern." One explanation came from one woman who stood up in the crowd of mostly budget supporters and said it was not a question of whether you supported education; it was a question of whether people could afford increases every year.
"I voted no," she said. "I have children in school, but I really can't do it anymore. It is not that I don't want to support the school budget, it's just that I can't afford any more increases, and I am sorry."
|
for larger version       |
||||||||||||||||||
