Contact:
Borough Clerk Ellen Horak 973-347-0159 ext 16
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Stanhope, NJ - June 23, 2010
THE BOROUGH OF STANHOPE
SPECIAL MEETING
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
STANHOPE BOARD OF EDUCATION
May 6, 2010
7:00 P.M.
SALUTE TO COLORS
Mayor Kuncken invited all those present to stand in a salute to colors.
MAYOR'S STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH P.L. 1975
Adequate Notice of this Meeting has been provided according to the Open Public Meetings Act, Assembly Bill 1030. Notice of this Special Budget Meeting was sent to the NJ Herald and the Daily Record on April 29, 2010 and was placed on the Official Bulletin Board in the Municipal Building.
In the event the Mayor and Council have not addressed all items on this Agenda by 11:00 PM and they are of the opinion that they cannot complete the Agenda in a reasonable time period, the Mayor and Council may exercise their option to continue this meeting at an agreed to date, time and place within ten (10) days of this meeting.
Please turn off all cell phones for the duration of this Meeting.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Kuncken asked the Clerk to call role for the governing body.
Council Members:
Councilman Murphy – present Councilman Graham – present
Councilwoman Santucci – present Councilman Vance - absent
Councilwoman Maio – present Councilman Benson – present
Mayor Kuncken – present
Mayor Kuncken noted Councilman Vance has recused himself from all discussions with regard to the defeated school budget because his wife is employed at Stanhope School.
Mayor Kuncken stated this is a joint meeting with the Stanhope Board of Education and asked Ms. Gina Thomas to read the Board of Education’s Opening Statement.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Snyder to call role.
ROLL CALL
Mr. Bender –present Mr. Studevant - present
Mr. Wronko – present Mr. Moscatello - present
Mr. Stricchiola - present Ms. Thomas – present
This is to advise the general public and to instruct that it be recorded in the Minutes that in compliance with Chapter 231 of the Public Laws of 1975, entitled the “Open Public Meetings Act,” Stanhope Board of Education is located at 24 Valley Road, Stanhope, New Jersey, has caused this notice to be posted at the Office of Stanhope Board of Education, mailed to the New Jersey Herald, The Township Journal, the Municipal Clerk of the Borough of Stanhope, Stanhope Post Office, and posted at the Valley Road School and the Linden Avenue School, setting forth the time, date, and location of this meeting.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Defeated School Budget
Mayor Kuncken stated the purpose of this joint meeting is to discuss the defeated school Budget. Mayor Kuncken turned the meeting over to Borough Attorney Stein so he could give an overview of the meeting. Mr. Stein stated the New Jersey laws provide that in the event a school budget is defeated by the voters in the district the Board of Education and governing body have a joint meeting to review the budget. It is the governing body’s obligation to consult with the Board of Education, review the school budget and then determine what, if any, additional cuts should be made to the tax levy before it is certified by the County. The certification due date is May 19, 2010. This meeting may or may not result in a decision by the governing body. The special question on technology also defeated on the school budget ballot is a final decision and will not be discussed. The only question is the base budget not adopted by the voters.
The Board of Education will first present their budget to the governing body and then members of the Board of Education and/or their professionals will express any additional information or discussions. The meeting will then return to the governing body, giving the governing body the opportunity to question the members of the Board of Education and/or their professionals or have discussions among themselves.
The public will then have an opportunity to ask questions. There is a five minute time limit for all residents wishing to speak.
Mr. Stein noted that the governing body can not just cut ten or twenty percent from the budget, but must choose a particular line item and an exact dollar amount for each line item chosen. Those cuts must be made part of a resolution and the cut(s) are submitted back to the Board of Education. The Board of Education can either accept the cuts or appeal to the Commission of Education to have the governing body’s cuts reinstated.
Mayor Kuncken thanked Mr. Stein and turned the meeting back over to Board President Gina Thomas. Ms. Thomas thanked everyone for attending to discuss the School Budget. Ms. Thomas began her presentation. In New Jersey’s most difficult school budget elections in memory, Stanhope’s 2010-2011 budget was narrowly defeated. Despite the drastic reductions in state aid and the difficult choices that have been forced upon us, Stanhope’s proposed 2010-2011 budget contains a tax levy increase within the four percent (4%) cap. The Stanhope Board of Education prides itself on the fiscal responsibility with which our district is managed. In 2008, we committed to the Borough Council that the Board of Education would exercise fiscal responsibility and we believe that we have lived up to our word. We are at or near the top of our peer group districts in key measures of prudent management. The difference in the School Budget from 2009-10 to 2010-11 is ($372,286). We have not compromised our commitment to our students’ educational experience in the name of fiscal restraint. Our district demonstrates improved student performance even as our spending per pupil has declined. We believe that the proposed budget best serves the Stanhope taxpayers and our community’s students, and should be certified as is by the Council.
In the 2010 school budget elections, 58.6% of school budgets statewide were defeated. Among the 146 New Jersey districts that went out at cap (as did Stanhope), 85 districts (58.2%) were defeated. Stanhope’s school budget was defeated by a margin of seven percent (7%). This margin is among the lowest among the 85 defeated districts that went out at the four percent (4%). Among comparable K-8 districts that suffered budget defeats (both statewide and in Sussex County), Stanhope’s margin of loss was among the lowest.
The Stanhope school budget was last defeated in 2008. At that election, 277 voters cast votes and the budget was defeated by a margin of twelve (12%) percent. In 2010, 701 votes were cast and the margin of defeat was seven (7%) percent. The increased turnout and the narrowed margin of defeat, in a year in which the media has been dominated by the Governor’s calls to defeat school budgets, demonstrates the support that our district has within the Stanhope community. Our 2010 “Yes” votes exceeded the total votes cast in 2008.
In 2008, the Stanhope Board of Education committed to the Borough Council that it would exercise fiscal prudence in managing the financial affairs of the district and build up our surplus. At our May 2008 meeting, we shared with the Council that we were anticipating overdue state aid and federal grant payments of $155,000.00. These payments were received in July 2008 and were applied to the 2008-2009 fund balance. To meet its commitment to the community and to the Borough Council, the Stanhope Board of Education has realized significant cost savings of the past two years. Some of the cost savings have included: convert private insurance to SAIF $32,000.00, workers compensation and benefits $19,000.00, other miscellaneous costs $23,000 for a total of $74,000.00. We have also brought our program spending in under budget in some instances (2008-2009 audit): regular programs $35,000, Special education $16,000.00, Preschool $64,000.00, Basic skills $22,000.00 and maintenance, supplies, insurance for a total of $168,000.00.
Using 2009-2010 data, we can also demonstrate our continued commitment to fiscal prudence by comparing Stanhope’s performance to that of comparable districts. We have defined “comparable districts” as having three characteristics: Kindergarten through eighth grade, 750 or fewer students, and Budgets within approximately fifty (50%) percent of Stanhope’s. There are forty-nine (49) other districts in New Jersey with each of these characteristics and three (3) in Sussex County. Stanhope’s total spending per pupil of $11,180 is lower than all but six of comparable New Jersey districts and is the lowest of the comparable Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s total spending per pupil in the classroom of $6,927.00 is lower than all but seven (7) of the comparable New Jersey districts and the lowest of the comparable Sussex County districts. Of this amount, Stanhope’s spending on instructional salaries and benefits per pupil of $5,566.00 is lower than all but fourteen (14) of the comparable New Jersey districts and the second lowest of the comparable Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s median teacher’s salary of $52,916 is lower that all but twelve (12) of the comparable New Jersey districts and the second lowest of the comparable Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s student/teacher ratio of 11.4:1 is higher than 33 of the comparable New Jersey districts and one of the Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s median administrative salary of $82,230 is lower than all but 21 of the comparable New Jersey districts and is lower than all of the comparable Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s spending on books per pupil of $24.00 is the lowest among all comparable New Jersey and all Sussex County districts. Stanhope’s spending on extra-curricular per pupil of $69.00 is lower than 36 of the 50 comparable New Jersey districts and two of the Sussex of the Sussex County districts. We have done as we have promised. Over the last two years, the Board of Education has fulfilled its commitment, reducing total spending per student from $11,430.00 in 2008-2009 to $11,018.00 in 2009-2010.
The Stanhope Board of Education takes a great deal of pride in our schools and the education they provide our children. In the last year, despite our financial austerity, our students’ performance has improved.
In order to bring our budget in a cap, we had to account for the reduction in State aid as well as cost increases of greater than $600,000. The teachers have agreed to be covered under the State health insurance plan, which creates savings of approximately $400,000 for next year. This change allowed the $600,000 in cost increases for 2010-2011 to not be an even greater amount.
Ms. Thomas continued, our prudence in budgeting and managing with the four (4%) percent levy cap despite reductions in state aid will not be without consequences to the educational experience of Stanhope’s children. Here are the key cuts that we have made in the 2010-2011 budget:
Reductions in Certificated and Support Staff: Home Economics, Industrial Arts, Preschool Special Education Teacher, Library and Media Center, Middle School Science, Office Clerk, Preschool Special Education Aide.
Programming Reductions: World Languages (50%), Guidance (80%), Music (70%), Technology (60%), Child Study Team Secretary (70%, 12 month employee to 10 month employee).
Elimination of Extra-curricular and After-school: Boys and Girls Basketball, Cheerleading, Volleyball, and related supervision, referees and transportation.
In conclusion the Stanhope Board of Education believes strongly that we have met our commitment to exercise fiscal responsibility. At the same time, our students’ performance has improved, demonstrating the strong progress that our district is making in the education that we provide to our children. Our demonstrated success in combining economic financial management and uncompromising commitment to our students argues compellingly for the Council’s acceptance of the 2010-2011 school budget as is. The budget does not have room to be cut without negative consequences. The budget is thoughtful, prudent, and will provide Stanhope with the best possible balance between the money we spend and the education our children deserve.
Ms. Thomas turned the meeting over to Interim Superintendent, Dennis Fyffe. Mr. Fyffe spoke about the monitoring program that monitors all New Jersey school districts and how Stanhope’s data shows a significant progress in the last three years.
Each of the Board of Education members spoke individually endorsing the budget and asking the governing body to accept the budget “as is”.
Board of Education Member, Mr. Strudevant, spoke again noting strongly that one must pay to get good people and by picking apart the school’s budget is not only taking away from this year’s educational programs, but it will take away from our education programs for generations to come.
Ms. Thomas reported that concludes the Board of Education’s presentation and returned the meeting back to Mayor Kuncken. Mayor Kuncken noted the governing body believes in education and does not like the present position they are in; State law however mandates it is the obligation of the governing body to review and discuss the school budget defeated by the voters. Mayor Kuncken asked if Council had any questions or comments regarding the budget packet or comments made by the Board of Education Members.
Councilman Benson asked how much State Aid was lost in the 2010-2011 Budget. It appears to be three (3%) percent to him. Interim Superintendent Fyffe answered there is an eighteen (18%) percent reduction in State aid from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011. Councilman Benson agreed with Mr. Moscatello that the loss of Home Economics and Industrial Arts lessens a student’s education experience, and he questioned the reduction in technology noting that technology is our future. Councilman Benson also questioned the lack of a repair, maintenance and up-keep line item. Business Administrator Snyder answered it is included in the capital expenses line item for window replacement. Councilman Benson asked if it was the same window that should have been replaced two years ago. Interim Superintendent Fyffe answered affirmatively stating that the last few years have been very difficult and some hard cuts have had to be made to remain strong to the Board of Education’s commitment to the governing body that they would be fiscally responsible.
Councilman Murphy stated he voted for the budget and he believes that education is the framework of society. Councilman Murphy feels the Board of Education’s presentation did not address the residents who voted against the budget, but only justified the budget they presented. Councilman Murphy noted that if the Board of Education had a more aggressive approach to look for concessions from the teachers, administrators, and others programs could possibly be restored.
Ms. Thomas responded the Administration has frozen salaries and the Board of Education is currently in a conversation with the teachers regarding a wage freeze. Councilman Murphy asked when they expect a resolution of that conversation. Ms. Thomas said that negotiations with a bargaining unit involve a process and she can not answer when there will be a resolution.
Councilwoman Maio thanked the Board of Education for their presentation. Councilwoman Maio noted the teachers changed their health plan as a cost savings to the district and asked if there was a reduction in benefits. Ms. Thomas answered that eight teachers in a particular plan felt the changes the most and the others have a reduction in their prescription plan. Councilwoman Maio asked Ms. Thomas if she could supply the governing body with the names of the comparable districts used in the presentation and did she know the average teacher’s salary. Ms. Thomas replied she would give the governing body the names of the comparable districts, but the Department of Education uses median salaries not the average. Councilwoman Maio asked where in the budget are the line items for computers and technology. The Business Administrator supplied the line item numbers. Interim Superintendent Fyffe added that any purchase under $2,500.00 is included in supplies. Councilwoman Maio asked, if Federal funds are received, where will the funds be allocated. The Business Administrator replied they have not been notified that funding will be received, but if it is, it will be miscellaneous revenue. Councilwoman Maio asked if the funding would reduce the tax levy. Interim Superintendent Fyffe responded it would reduce the levy next year. Mr. Fyffe added no legislature has been introduced in Washington to propose another round of funding. Councilwoman Maio asked how the pre-school program can be guaranteed to be in the black if the tuition is not yet established. Mr. Fyffe said they are not relying on the revenue for the program to be in the black. Mr. Fyffe continued that the regular pre-school is state mandated and last year the program was $77,000.00 in the red. Mr. Fyffe restructured the program by reducing the full day pre-school to half-day, eliminating a full time special education teacher plus their health benefits, and eliminating a full-time aide. The restructuring reduced the program by $81,000.00 from salaries and benefits. Councilwoman Maio asked why the tuition is $6.00 a day for non-special education students. Mr. Fyffe said he will be surveying public and private pre-schools and may have a proposal for an increase at the May Board of Education meeting.
Councilman Graham said he feels the Board of Education’s proposed budget is the best it could be under the constantly changing circumstances. Councilman Graham added the economy is experiencing tough changes and the School Budget is not exempt from those changes. Councilman Graham feels that even though the School Board members would like to leave this budget as is there is nothing for the voters who voted against this budget.
Ms. Thomas responded that anything above the $10,000.00 freeze would require another reduction in services. It would mean a K-8 teacher and class size would reach thirty (30).
Councilwoman Santucci asked what the plan is to enable the students to access library materials and media center with no librarian. Interim Superintendent Fyffe responded using the current budget, a library aid would be hired part-time and for a modest stipend and they will look to bring in a certified librarian for a couple hours a week. The next step will be to have volunteers fill in when needed.
Councilman Murphy asked if, the teachers choose to accept a salary freeze for the coming year, what that would equate to monetarily in the budget. Ms. Thomas responded with a full 100% cut $89,272.00 and a step freeze $54,768.00
Mayor Kuncken noted the Board of Education has made substantial cuts: Home Economics, Music, Industrial Arts. But theses cuts did not impact the core education in Math, Reading and Science. Mayor Kuncken asked what does the next level of cuts do the education system. Ms. Thomas replied a teacher’s position would be eliminated and she discussed the impact on each grade level. Mayor Kuncken said there a very few options.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Mayor Kuncken opened the meeting to the public and advised all present that each speaker is limited to five (5) minutes.
Chris Moscatello, 21 Towpath Lane, Stanhope asked how many “no” voters were truly informed about the budget. Ms. Moscatello said the budget is bare bones as is and asked the governing body to approve the budget “as is”.
Peggy Findley, 88 Main Street, commented about the simultaneous student voting center at the public polls during the School Board Election. Ms. Findley feels the students should be taught about voting at school.
Kim Moppert, 9 Lenape Drive, asked the governing body not to cut anything more and approve the School’s budget. Ms. Moppert spoke as a former student and mother of students who are now attending Valley Road School and is saddened by the program cuts that impact the educational experience of the students.
Pat Menagh, 11 Delaware Avenue commented that the administration took a salary freeze, but why are the teachers refusing to give back and save a colleague’s job.
Kim Ferrer, 8 Delaware Avenue also asked the governing body to pass the budget as is because the Board of Education has already cut so much.
Mayor Kuncken noted the focus of the meeting is either to accept the budget presented that the voters defeated, or look for additional money resulting in more cuts. All programs that were cut before this budget are no longer on the table for discussion.
Marie Costanza, 12 Oak Drive said she moved back to Stanhope especially for the excellent educational system. Ms. Costanza also mentioned that a good school system keeps all residents home values up and should we cut the budget and loose more teachers and programs it will reflect in lower property values.
Joelle DeMasi, 10 Young Drive also spoke supporting the budget and asked the governing body to accept the budget as is. She would like her younger children to have the same wonderful experiences her older children enjoyed.
Tom Valle, 34 Elizabeth Avenue said he moved to Stanhope only eight (8) months ago. Other than the home he purchased there is one building in town he truly cared about – the school. Mr. Valle stated the Stanhope Board of Education was fiscally responsible prior to the vote and should not be penalized further by additional cuts.
Dolores Tomayko, 15 Delaware asked a question about the Board’s presentation where it stated $11,000.00 is the cost to educate a child. Ms. Tomayko said if $6,000.00 is teaching what is included in the remaining $5,000.00. Ms. Tomayko continued that $5,000.00 is 47% of the total cost per student and that is where the cuts should come from. Mr. Fyffe said the 47% consists of non-class expenses, administrative and custodial salaries, maintenance and operating costs.
Carissa Berkowicz, 29 Linden Avenue said that 47% of their household income goes to electric, phone and other operating costs and even though that 47% does not given them what they want in life, the operating costs can not be cut.
Bill Thornton, 11 King Street, noted the teachers negotiated their salary in a contract. Mr. Thornton would like the governing body to keep the budget as is.
Mary Ann Simpson, Valley Road School Nurse spoke about the fact that the employees of the school pay all of the same bills and are experiencing the same financial distress as the residents and a pay freeze or cut may hurt their livelihood even more.
Christine Pote, 11 Linden Avenue spoke about the teachers of Stanhope School and their dedication to the students. She noted that teachers already notified they were losing their job participated in the sixth grade camping trip and made the trip memorable for their students.
Peggy Spooner, 87 Main Street said the Linden Avenue School had only one classroom in use and asked if the other two classrooms could be opened and have an out-of-town preschool rent the space. Mr. Fyffe thanked Ms. Spooner for her question and replied affirmatively that a plan to do something similar is underway but would not be ready for September 2010 but hopefully September 2011. Mayor Kuncken inquired if there were enough Stanhope students in the building to meet the State’s regulations in accordance with the construction bond. Mr. Fyffe responded affirmatively replying that as long as they were running their own program it would be legal. Any program would be reviewed by the Executive County Superintendent.
Courtney Boyle, 1 Central Avenue said the school system binds a community and this community should protect its asset when considering the question before you.
Kim Loftis, 10 James Street stated she has seen a school system fail in North Carolina only to be followed by the community falling apart. Ms. Loftis said that the Valley Road School website contents made her excited to move to Stanhope and she hopes the community will take care of the school.
John Maiello, 3 Spring Street, a resident of Stanhope and a teacher at Nutley High School notes smaller classes and varying experiences fosters achievement. Mr. Maiello asked the governing body not to cut anything further from the budget.
Peter Utz, 1 Valley Road said it was time to think outside the box. For example sue the former superintendent, regionalize, look for ways to purchase items in bulk, pre-buy oil, etc. Ms. Thomas said they are waiting for a hearing date in connection with the old superintendent. The process has been doing discovery and keeping the Board of Education informed. All information will be made public when known.
Seeing no one further from the public wishing to speak, Mayor Kuncken closed the public portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Thomas said they now need direction from the governing body. Will they make a decision this evening or need more time and information. Mayor Kuncken polled the governing body.
Councilman Graham – no decision Councilwoman Maio – no decision
Councilman Murphy – no decision Councilman Benson – no decision
Councilwoman Santucci – no decision
Mayor Kuncken asked the governing body what additional information they needed to make a decision.
Councilwoman Santucci would like to know the comparable districts used in their comparison and the average salaries instead of median salaries. Ms. Thomas replied that average salary information is not available. Ms. Thomas noted that the comparable districts are a useful tool, but the salary information is not because some districts have older experienced teachers and their salary expense looks top heavy and some districts have more young inexperienced teachers and they appear financially responsible. Councilman Benson would like to know if the teachers are considering a salary or step freeze now. Mr. Moscatello responded that the teachers have frozen their salaries before and their earnings have progressed from then. Councilman Murphy asked if the teachers would give back or freeze their pay to save the librarian. Ms. Thomas asked if the Stanhope teachers did decided to freeze pay would the money be turned over to the tax payers or used to restore something in the original cuts. Councilwoman Maio replied the governing body cannot make a decision without the advice of the Board of Education. If you let us keep X we keep a portion of Y. Ms. Thomas said they are meeting with the teachers and their negotiators and they could put together different scenarios if the teachers were to freeze 100%, 50% or 0%. Councilwoman Maio said there are many areas of grey they would like to see as well. Ms. Thomas said they have been discussing the many budget scenarios for months and would put something in writing for the governing body.
Councilwoman Maio said she would like to see one tax point/$35,000.00 minimum returned to the tax payers. A lengthy discussion of different hypothetical scenarios was discussed between the governing body and the Board of Education. Ms. Thomas asked was one tax point acceptable to the governing body with the teachers off the table. Mayor Kuncken polled the governing body.
Councilman Graham – yes Councilwoman Maio – yes
Councilman Murphy – no Councilman Benson – yes
Councilwoman Santucci – yes
Mayor Kuncken said we will not schedule a meeting and will wait for the information from the Board of Education.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Councilman Benson, seconded by Councilwoman Maio, and unanimously carried by voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
Approved:
Lynda Knott
Deputy Borough Clerk
For Ellen Horak, RMC
Borough Clerk