| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 12:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
 |
|
| Anybody attend the budget meeting today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 2:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 3:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 4:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I'm with you here --- the Board of Ed will look at what costs are truly necessary to provide an excellent (if you want "adequate" move to another town -- we want "excellent") education -- cut where they can and then the amount required is set. The fact that the ratable base has decreased and the amount of state aide has decreased need to be taken into account -- but to cut too deeply into programming to fit someone's arbitrary belief that taxes should never go up is silly. Clearly costs rise -- and the sacrifice should be from our pocket books -- not the kids' education.
Now that doesn't mean that I believe that costs should be free to increase yearly - clearly costs need to be managed responsibly, and nothing in my 17 years here has led me to believe that the costs are out of control at Cranbury School. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 4:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
They had already done that. The proposed budget before the news of the 0% state funding already reduced the spending over last year by over $600K to keep the tax rate flat inclusive of assuming a 15% drop in State funding, as they had been advised by the Governor's office previously.
So if that is your criteria, then you are okay with them now covering the additional $634K in lost state aid with an increase to the tax rate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 5:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I was trying to show my argument in a way you'd understand. Clearly you cannot, so let me be clear.
The budget should have been set for a zero rate increase. This means cutting spending to cover the devaluation and the original 15% of lost state aid. We then have a budget of X.
We have lost all state Aid. So we have a budget of X- Y. If the BOE says that to make up this difference we have to raise taxes, then I am okay as long as that increase only covers the loss of state Aid. However, I would ideally like a medium of a tax increase plus additional cuts so instead of a tax rate of A, we have a tax rate of A - the cuts.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I tried fitting the comments into others thoughts and am then told I am not on the planet earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 5:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I was trying to show my argument in a way you'd understand. Clearly you cannot, so let me be clear.
The budget should have been set for a zero rate increase. This means cutting spending to cover the devaluation and the original 15% of lost state aid. We then have a budget of X.
We have lost all state Aid. So we have a budget of X- Y. If the BOE says that to make up this difference we have to raise taxes, then I am okay as long as that increase only covers the loss of state Aid. However, I would ideally like a medium of a tax increase plus additional cuts so instead of a tax rate of A, we have a tax rate of A - the cuts.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I tried fitting the comments into others thoughts and am then told I am not on the planet earth. |
As keeps getting posted, this is exactly what they already did. So I guess you are saying you approve of their current budget and are supportive of them now increasing the tax rate to compensate for the loss of the remaining state aid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 6:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I was trying to show my argument in a way you'd understand. Clearly you cannot, so let me be clear.
The budget should have been set for a zero rate increase. This means cutting spending to cover the devaluation and the original 15% of lost state aid. We then have a budget of X.
We have lost all state Aid. So we have a budget of X- Y. If the BOE says that to make up this difference we have to raise taxes, then I am okay as long as that increase only covers the loss of state Aid. However, I would ideally like a medium of a tax increase plus additional cuts so instead of a tax rate of A, we have a tax rate of A - the cuts.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I tried fitting the comments into others thoughts and am then told I am not on the planet earth. |
As keeps getting posted, this is exactly what they already did. So I guess you are saying you approve of their current budget and are supportive of them now increasing the tax rate to compensate for the loss of the remaining state aid. |
No hey did not. From what I heard from one BOE member they were going with a 2-3 cent increase prior to the loss of state aid due to the devaluation of property. That I disagree with. I do not believe in a 2-3 cent increase in rates and then an additional increase to compensate for the loss of state aid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 8:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I was trying to show my argument in a way you'd understand. Clearly you cannot, so let me be clear.
The budget should have been set for a zero rate increase. This means cutting spending to cover the devaluation and the original 15% of lost state aid. We then have a budget of X.
We have lost all state Aid. So we have a budget of X- Y. If the BOE says that to make up this difference we have to raise taxes, then I am okay as long as that increase only covers the loss of state Aid. However, I would ideally like a medium of a tax increase plus additional cuts so instead of a tax rate of A, we have a tax rate of A - the cuts.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I tried fitting the comments into others thoughts and am then told I am not on the planet earth. |
As keeps getting posted, this is exactly what they already did. So I guess you are saying you approve of their current budget and are supportive of them now increasing the tax rate to compensate for the loss of the remaining state aid. |
No hey did not. From what I heard from one BOE member they were going with a 2-3 cent increase prior to the loss of state aid due to the devaluation of property. That I disagree with. I do not believe in a 2-3 cent increase in rates and then an additional increase to compensate for the loss of state aid. |
The proposed budget is public information and has been discussed here in detail. Why not look at the available facts instead of what you hear second hand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Because
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 8:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Because it it soooo much more fun to simply whine and complain without getting bogged down in those annoying "facts". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 10:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Spending as defined by the tax rate. So if they reduce spending by $100K and increase the tax rate because of the devaluation of the property then that is unacceptable to me. They need to reduce spending sufficent enough so that the only tax rate increase is purely due to the budget cut by the Governor. |
You can of course define spending anyway you wish. Here on the planet Earth I find it easiest to define spending as the actual amount spent. Therefore, I would define an increase or decrease in spending by the percentage more or less spent.
By your explanation as property values increase you are fine with the school spending as much as the increase, because by your definition since taxes didn't go up, spending didn't go up. This is of course lunacy.
See what they spend or don't spend then make a judgement. |
I was trying to show my argument in a way you'd understand. Clearly you cannot, so let me be clear.
The budget should have been set for a zero rate increase. This means cutting spending to cover the devaluation and the original 15% of lost state aid. We then have a budget of X.
We have lost all state Aid. So we have a budget of X- Y. If the BOE says that to make up this difference we have to raise taxes, then I am okay as long as that increase only covers the loss of state Aid. However, I would ideally like a medium of a tax increase plus additional cuts so instead of a tax rate of A, we have a tax rate of A - the cuts.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I tried fitting the comments into others thoughts and am then told I am not on the planet earth. |
As keeps getting posted, this is exactly what they already did. So I guess you are saying you approve of their current budget and are supportive of them now increasing the tax rate to compensate for the loss of the remaining state aid. |
No hey did not. From what I heard from one BOE member they were going with a 2-3 cent increase prior to the loss of state aid due to the devaluation of property. That I disagree with. I do not believe in a 2-3 cent increase in rates and then an additional increase to compensate for the loss of state aid. |
The proposed budget is public information and has been discussed here in detail. Why not look at the available facts instead of what you hear second hand? |
Here is the budget http://portal.cranburyschool.org/boe/Budget%20Info/2010%20Budget.pdf
Notice what is missing? It is the tax rate that is missing. That is what is in discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010, 11:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| This discussion like many on this site is simply going in circles. The amount of misunderstanding and misinformation is mind numbing. Read the budget. If you have questions or don't understand something go to the meeting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2010, 7:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | This discussion like many on this site is simply going in circles. The amount of misunderstanding and misinformation is mind numbing. Read the budget. If you have questions or don't understand something go to the meeting. |
Again, you can read the budget all you want. The budget does not show the proposed TAX RATE. I plan on going to the meeting on Friday. The budget posted clearly shows that as it stands (it includes the state aid) there will need to be a tax increase to account for the devaluation of property just do the math on what one cent raised last year compared to this and you can see a rate increase is required. The question is how much if it is 2-3 cents, it would not have been 4 or 5 cents. With the additional loss of state aid if there are no cuts there will be a LARGER rate increase.
So rather than try and hide behind read the budget and saying it's misinformation, why don't you read the budget? Take a look. If you see a TAX RATE mentioned perhaps I missed it, then post it. Otherwise don't go saying it's misinformation or be condescending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2010, 7:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
Is the meeting on the 26th going to be the only one?
I have issue with this for two reasons:
1) Because they will now need to further revise the budget it doesn't give anyone time to see and review it prior to the meeting.
2) Because it is happening at the start of spring break many of us will be out of town. I would definitely attend the meeting but cannot at the current time. They should have a meeting just after spring break. Even if this one is legally required I doubt the law prevents a second meeting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2010, 9:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | This discussion like many on this site is simply going in circles. The amount of misunderstanding and misinformation is mind numbing. Read the budget. If you have questions or don't understand something go to the meeting. |
Again, you can read the budget all you want. The budget does not show the proposed TAX RATE. I plan on going to the meeting on Friday. The budget posted clearly shows that as it stands (it includes the state aid) there will need to be a tax increase to account for the devaluation of property just do the math on what one cent raised last year compared to this and you can see a rate increase is required. The question is how much if it is 2-3 cents, it would not have been 4 or 5 cents. With the additional loss of state aid if there are no cuts there will be a LARGER rate increase.
So rather than try and hide behind read the budget and saying it's misinformation, why don't you read the budget? Take a look. If you see a TAX RATE mentioned perhaps I missed it, then post it. Otherwise don't go saying it's misinformation or be condescending. |
If it is going to be 2 to 3 cents, do the math. You know the assessed value of your home. You can figure it out easily. What is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2010, 9:36 am EDT Post subject: Re: What is Cranbury School planning for a budget this year? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Is the meeting on the 26th going to be the only one?
I have issue with this for two reasons:
1) Because they will now need to further revise the budget it doesn't give anyone time to see and review it prior to the meeting.
2) Because it is happening at the start of spring break many of us will be out of town. I would definitely attend the meeting but cannot at the current time. They should have a meeting just after spring break. Even if this one is legally required I doubt the law prevents a second meeting. |
Answer: Yes. The issues you have are absolutely valid. Blame again lies with the state. The state mandates the meeting must be done during the week of our spring break with no wiggle room. The state aid figures came out more than a month later than they are supposed to (since the state makes the rules they get to break them).
Therefore, all over the state schools have less than two weeks between when they got the aid numbers and when they have to submit the budget. This is madness.
All over the state there will be mistakes made on these rushed budgets. Left or right, liberal or conservative, no one thinks this kind or rush job is the way to build a budget. Yet no one at the state level, right or left, conservative or liberal has done anything to change this process. It is shameful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
