The Multi-Million Dollar Question:
How to Lower the Mamaroneck School Budget

by Joan R. Simon

(November 4, 2004) Tax certioraris – debt service – interfund transfers – assessed valuation – retirement benefits – contractual obligations …

Yes, these were the words that galvanized some 60 to 70 parents and community members to attend the Mamaroneck School Board study session on November 1 to discuss, of all things, the 2005-06 budget.

Concerned about the narrow passage (by 69 votes) of the school budget last May (see: School Budget Passes:1520-1444), the school board this year decided to start its budget process nearly six months ahead of its normal schedule. Commented school board president Celia Felsher, “Some of the ‘no’ vote was due to the Kemper issue, but a sizeable amount was because of the high tax increase.” Last year’s budget went up 8.12% and led to a 9.84% increase in the portion of property taxes that pay for schools.

At issue now is how to keep the budget within reasonable limits, given “built in” expenses and declining revenues.

Sarah Tate, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, led the participants through a comprehensive budget workshop. It will come as no surprise to local residents that the lion’s share, or 91%, of revenue, comes from property taxes, but successful tax certioraris – law suits which result in a decrease in assessed valuation of a property – annually reduce the revenue coming into the school district from that source. Since 1992, the assessed valuation of all property in the district has gone from $164.5 million to $149.5 million. For most district homeowners, that has meant an increase in taxes.

On the other side of the ledger, teacher and other staff salaries and benefits account for 76% of the budget expenditures. These amounts are largely set by contract and state mandates and are not flexible. The bonds that have been passed in recent years to pay for the Hommocks and high school additions, as well as for improvements in the four elementary schools, incur interest costs that take up another 6% of the budget. Both of these percentages are lower than or consistent with other school districts and, because of its solid financial position, Mamaroneck has been assigned a AAA bond rating by Moody’s.

Budget Numbers

So how do next year’s numbers add up? There are seven basic categories with fixed increases. Below are the current estimates for the 05-06 budget, which the board is looking for ways to reduce:

Unless the board comes up with a way of cutting these numbers, the total would come to 8.3% that translates (because of reduced property assessments) to a tax increase of 9.4%. After two years of near 10% tax increases, many board members, according to Ms. Felsher, feel this amount is “extremely high and would be a level of increase that at this point they would be uncomfortable presenting to the community.”

It takes a reduction of $895,000 to cut the school taxes by 1%. Where can the money come from?

According to Ms. Felsher, “to make any significant cut you have to look at staffing, which gets you to programs.” She added, “you can cut after-school activities, but they’re not that expensive.” With an increase in the school population, primarily in the high school, personnel reduction will not come easily. In fact, the high school will probably need additional teachers next year to handle the growing number of students and to continue making advance level courses accessible to more students (see: Gatekeeping ).

To be continued …

The night’s focus was on information, not solutions. The latter will come, possibly, at the next budget study session, scheduled for Tuesday, December 7. Superintendent Sherry King encouraged the public to come out again and express their views. She concluded, “We want the budget to reflect the values of the community. We want to hear from the community about where your hopes and values lie.”