| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
300
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 1:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
 |
|
| The school is efficient. Its $300. Suck it up people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 2:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest 2 wrote: |
As far as one-on-one instruction for advanced skills -- I have never heard of this -- the one-on-one I have heard of is for students with special needs who need additional services to be able to attain age appropriate learning levels. These services are required per their IEP plans. |
No, it's for advanced students too. They get pulled out of class, multiple times a day in some cases to get individual instruction from multiple special teachers. But is this mandated? I doubt it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 3:55 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| I've never heard of 1-on-1 for advanced skills. There are G&T pull outs for kids - these are small groups of kids (not 1-on-1) and these G&T programs are mandated. They get pulled out 1 or 2 times a week -- not multiple times a day. As I stated earlier -- there is only 1 G&T teacher for the school and this is a mandated program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 5:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| How are you getting at 300K, 600,000 means at 170K being one cent that the property taxes will increase 3.5 cents, with the already proposed increase of 3 or 4 cents you are talking 6.5 to 7.5 cent increase in taxes for the school. Sorry, but I can't support that large an increase when our Township Committee is hitting surplus to keep rates even this year. I spoke with a neighbor who I did not realize was working two jobs 3 including his wife's just so they can stay in Cranbury. How do you justify telling that individual he'll have to pay more because you don't want to cut anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 5:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | How are you getting at 300K, 600,000 means at 170K being one cent that the property taxes will increase 3.5 cents, with the already proposed increase of 3 or 4 cents you are talking 6.5 to 7.5 cent increase in taxes for the school. Sorry, but I can't support that large an increase when our Township Committee is hitting surplus to keep rates even this year. I spoke with a neighbor who I did not realize was working two jobs 3 including his wife's just so they can stay in Cranbury. How do you justify telling that individual he'll have to pay more because you don't want to cut anything? |
What does hitting surplus mean? They are using previously collected taxes to pay current operating. Schools are not allowed to carry a surplus more than 2 percent. The surplus argument is irrelevent. Arguing that we can't afford a 7 percent increase is completely valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 6:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Wisenheimer wrote: | | Good idea! Cut the money for the advanced kids. Who needs to support all those little wisenheimer smarty-pants urchins anyway? Let's settle on giving average kids an average education. Its not like people pay a huge premium to move to this town so their kids can get a blue ribbon education. |
Did you really just refer to children as "Wisenheimer smarty pants urchins"?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 9:34 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
If the school needs a 5% increase to make up for cuts from the state, and the municipal budget remains flat, how do you arrive at the need for a 7% increase?
Corzine, is that you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 9:46 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | If the school needs a 5% increase to make up for cuts from the state, and the municipal budget remains flat, how do you arrive at the need for a 7% increase?
Corzine, is that you? |
The tax base shrank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 9:57 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | If the school needs a 5% increase to make up for cuts from the state, and the municipal budget remains flat, how do you arrive at the need for a 7% increase?
Corzine, is that you? |
The tax base shrank. |
Which means that we should make the necessary cuts so we're only in a no worse situation. We should not be increasing the tax rate or spending simply because of the reduced tax base. The TC cut spending. The BOE should cut spending. I have no issue supporting a budget that is covering only the cost of lost aid, but that plus I have an issue with.
Also, I think the BOE needs more contested elections. We're seeing elections with no opposition so that means we're disadvantaged from the start not having a choice. I can't run, but it would be good to have more people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010, 11:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | If the school needs a 5% increase to make up for cuts from the state, and the municipal budget remains flat, how do you arrive at the need for a 7% increase?
Corzine, is that you? |
The tax base shrank. |
Which means that we should make the necessary cuts so we're only in a no worse situation. We should not be increasing the tax rate or spending simply because of the reduced tax base. The TC cut spending. The BOE should cut spending. I have no issue supporting a budget that is covering only the cost of lost aid, but that plus I have an issue with.
Also, I think the BOE needs more contested elections. We're seeing elections with no opposition so that means we're disadvantaged from the start not having a choice. I can't run, but it would be good to have more people. |
Can you clarify your statements because they seem contradictory. You seem to be saying that you have "no issue" with supporting the BOE if they replace the cost of the lost aid but then you say that they should not increase the tax rate because of the reduced tax base. Those are mutually exclusive positions -- you can't have both and still replace the lost aid in the budget.
Perhaps your confusion is in the meaning of the reduced tax base. What the poster meant was that because of some residents and commercial buildings got lower reassessments of the property values that the amount collected from all our properties in the Township is lower. Therefore to spend exactly the same amount of money in the budget would already require an increase in the tax rate – if spending is flat the tax base and tax rate will always move in opposite directions. Therefore, even with no new or increased spending, and even before factoring in the lost aid, the tax rate would have risen.
Keeping that in mind, and the advisory from the Governor's office to expect a 15% cut in aid, the BOE had already prepared a budget that cut spending by over $600,000 to keep the tax rate flat. Instead the Governor surprised everyone by contradicting his advanced guidance and cutting 100% of the aid (which was already only a fraction of what Cranbury taxpayers send to Trenton to be redistributed to other districts). Cranbury was hit harder than most districts because it already received less aid and the Governor’s policy was to limit the overall impact to any district’s budget by not more than 5% of the budget (without consideration to the additional impact of smaller tax bases). Therefore the districts already getting the least aid got the most cuts because the cuts wouldn’t exceed 5% of their overall budget. In contrast, Jamesburg depends on the state for over 40% of its budget and therefore had only a minor haircut in its millions in aid.
So, if you support the BOE “replacing” the lost aid, they need to increase the tax burden by approximately $600,000. This would actually make their budget proposal approximately flat year-over-year. But because of the smaller tax base due to reassessments it would require an increase to the tax rate.
So which do you support? An increase to the tax rate to cover the lost aid? Or the school cutting another $634,000 from the budget, making the total budget approximately $1,300,000 lower than last year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 7:28 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
Sure. I have no problem with the BOE if they say that we are cutting programs so that if we had state aid the tax rate would have been flat. Now from that point we lost state aid, so the increase in the tax rate will cover the lost state aid only.
Though, I would like to see further cuts above that point as well so perhaps our tax rate only increases 2-3 cents to cover half the loss of state aid and the other half coming from additional cuts.
I do not want to see a budget with equal or greater spending than last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 8:47 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I do not want to see a budget with equal or greater spending than last year. |
That's not even on the table. There is no scenario being proposed by the BOE or anyone else that isn't already at least $600,000 less than last year's budget. Anyone who suggested otherwise is ignoring the publically available budget or just trying to spread false rumors to stir people up.
The only issue is how much more, and what, do they cut and/or how much will taxes still have to raise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 11:42 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
See, I keep telling you, but, do you listen?
"Vote for Christie, he'll help us out!"
They give with one hand, but, take away with the other.
It doesn't really matter whom you vote for.
In the end, they are just out for themselves and their moneyed buddies!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrfunone
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 11:45 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
I know that I will get pilloried for this but.........................why not have parents pay for their kids who play sports?
Most people in this town can afford to do so.
If not, maybe the ones who do pay can somewhat subsidize for those who can't?
I know it sounds Socialist, Fascist, Communist, but................if you wanna save money..................... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 12:10 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| that is 100k of the budget. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 12:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| publius wrote: | See, I keep telling you, but, do you listen?
"Vote for Christie, he'll help us out!"
They give with one hand, but, take away with the other.
It doesn't really matter whom you vote for.
In the end, they are just out for themselves and their moneyed buddies!!!!!!!!!!! |
I agree we get screwed either way. But I don't see any evidence this is because Christie was "in it for himself." Someone was going to get screwed by this budget no matter what -- we had to make up for billions in shortfalls from years of overspending (perhaps now people can appreciate why some of us were reluctant to buy buildings and pay for new libraries just because we hadn't reached our technical debt ceiling). That said, if anything where Christie has failed is in being too accomodating. The approach where no district loses more than 5% of its budget just continues to perpetuate the redistribution of money from communities like ours toward those that are woefully unable to self-sustain themselves like Jamesburg.
All this is better than what Corzine wanted to do, which is just force better off communities like ours to merge into less well-off communities. Our taxes get redistributed either way, but at least we get to keep some identity and local atonomy this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
