From the Press of Atlantic City, May 4, 2010-Lee Procida, Staff Writer
The Township Committee approved Tuesday night cutting the local school district budget by $41,450, reducing a rejected 2.2-cent tax increase by more than 1 cent.
The 4-to-1 vote came after 45 minutes of comments from the public and a 20-minute executive session discussion by the Board of Education, which joined the committee in a special meeting at town hall.
The cut will be made possible by the new law mandating that employees contribute 1.5 percent of their benefits, Superintendent Rich Goldberg said.
Mayor Michael St. Amour called for compromise between the board and committee. He said anger should be focused on the state because its fiscal problems have necessitated the recent aid cuts, but instead it has resulted in tearing communities apart.
He called for reducing the local school district tax increase to 1 cent per $100 of assessed value.
After convening privately to discuss the proposal, the board returned with a 1.125 cent offer, saying the opinion was split among the members.
“You have to understand that we’ve been going through this budget problem for a lot longer than just this past tax season,” said board President Spiros Malaspina.
Committeeman Bernard Graebener dissented from the committee vote to accept that offer, saying that he thought the residents were calling for no tax increase when they rejected the spending plan.
The other members said they realized how hard it was to put together the budget and appreciated the compromise.
“It’s not comfortable for anyone on the board,” Michael St. Amour, “I understand that.”
About 50 people packed the meeting room, leaving only standing room. Many of those people asked questions about the current budget and what could be done to decrease it, as well as positing their own theories about what the vote meant and what should be done now.
Some demanded more concessions from teachers, while others asked what could be done without affecting staff.
Renee Goolden, of Reading Avenue, said she thought the overall problem was a failure to communicate. She said she didn’t think the public had enough information to make an informed decision on a difficult issue.
“Nobody wants their taxes to go up, but nobody wants their children to suffer,” she said.
The committee will formally approve the measure at its next meeting on Tuesday, and the board will then have to vote to approve it at its meeting on May 18.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Mullica approves one-cent school tax-rate cut in voter-rejected budget
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It was good to see the township elected officials and the school board trying to work together to meet the needs of the children while trying to give a little relief to taxpayers.
This was far different from last year when I voted against the regional school budget only to see last years Mayor Forman and former mayors Chasey and Kennedy screw the taxpayers and voters by okaying the regional budget despite the voters saying "no". Forman has tried to lie her way out of this one by saying nothing could be done. SHE CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.
How did Mullica get to be so expensive? It was giveaway contracts given by Chasey and Forman when their counterpart was voted out of office and they were losing power. We taxpayers are still paying for outsized increases and full boat medical coverage thanks to Forman and Chasey.
Mullica's new committee is finally doing something for the taxpayers instead of just rubber-stamping higher taxes despite voters NO vote.
Get the headline right. It should read " Mullica approves a 1.2 cent school tax rate increase. Do not make it sound all pretty.
Why can't the "full boat medical coverage and outsized increases" as the 10:38 poster states, be recinded when the current contract expires ???
These seem to be lifetime benefits, but the contracts only last a few years ???.
Should have mandated the school employees to pay 2.5% into their healthcare costs and cut our tax burden.
You cant shine shit. No matter how you package it.
It was refreshing to see the two governing bodies work together, without animosity, to achieve a balance between offering a fiscally sound education to our children without breaking the backs of the taxpayers.
The proposed 2.2 cent tax levy increase (which would have amounted to about $24 per year on the average assessed home in the township) was cut to a 1.125 cent increase.
It was not done through cutting any additional line items out of the budget.
The approximately $42,000 that was "found" to reduce the tax levy will come from the 1.5% TAX on Mullica Township Education Association members BASE SALARIES that was signed into law by Governor Christie in March.
This "tax" was to be used by local school boards to offset rising health care premiums. The money will begin to be taken from MTEA staff paychecks after May 22, 2010.
The MTEA currently works under an expired contract, with salaries set on the 2008-2009 expired salary guides. Once a new contract and salary guides are agreed to by both the Mullica Twp. BOE and the MTEA, the 1.5% of base salary "tax" will be collected on the new salaries. If the MTEA staff negotiates a pay raise, the 1.5% amount collected will increase - resulting in addtional monies collected by the BOE.
In effect - the MTEA now "gives back" to Mullica Township BOE. The new law completely circumvents the entire collective bargaining process that NJ school employees and local school boards have worked under to make contracts for over 40 years.
Don't forget, Governor Christie, by Executive Order,"stole" $261,000 of Mullica Twp. BOE budgeted surplus monies. That money came from Mullica Township voter-approved school budget money paid directly out of the pockets of Mullica Township taxpayers.
So please, before continuing to
villify the MTEA, realize that the MTEA has "given back" - and provided Mullica taxpayers with a significant "tax break".
I was both gratified to see the two boards (BOE and town council) work together, and at the same time disturbed.
As a school employee in the audience, I did not think it would be good to get up and talk and give my opinion. I thought people there speaking were for the most part fair and did not do too much pointing the finger at one group, namely school employees, as the reason for taxes.
I was satisfied that the boards met somewhere in the middle---that seems fair in a dispute. What bothered me was the way that Mr. Grabener wanted a no increase. If it were about the taxpayers, I could see it. But his wife, who was on the school board, was in the back of the room making faces and it was obvious to the school employees there that Mr. Grabener was just doing his wife's dirty work for her. She was voted OFF of the school board in part because she had an open disdain for the school staff. That had a lot to do with her not getting back on the school board. Now, she is using her husband to grind her ax with the school staff.
I did not want to write in, but I want everyone who does not know the business side of things to know that Mr. Grabener is not worried about taxpayers, he is worried about carrying out his wife's dirty work to get back at teachers and school staff. She was a heartless cut throut when she was a negotiator, and she was gone for a reason. I voted for Mr. Grabener, but will not support him now because of how he is carrying out grinding his wife's ax, and will make sure others at all levels know about it.
To the 8:17 poster.
Your right, you can't shine shit. Just look at how it turned out last year with Mayor Forman.
The people voted no to the full 2.2 cents, the school wanted the full 2.2 cents and it was handed to committee. The committee had the common sense to have an open, public meeting and a compromise was made. Sounds like good government to me.
Post a Comment