Parents Raise Concerns as Superintendent Presents $140.2M Budget

gave the and the community the breakdown of the recently approved Wednesday night, all the while stressing, “Aren’t our children worth it?"

But there were many Lindenhurst parents at the who were still concerned about the tax increase for the 2011-12 school year, despite the fact that the Council voted to support the budget.

As presented the budget, they asked about everything from contingency budgets to program cuts if the budget fails .

started the exchange with positives such as the Lindenhurst Board of Education’s decision on to preserve many of the programs previously at risk, including full day kindergarten, music, fine arts, dance, ALC, Orion, JROTC and foreign languages. The board had March 31 and rescheduled it for April 13.

Notable exceptions were:

• Eliminating JV9/JV2 athletics teams.
• Combining the varsity and JV bowling and golf teams.
• Eliminating several assistant coaching positions.

When Nathan next mentioned the closing of E.W. Bower elementary school as a cost-savings, one concerned parent asked what was being done with the building.

Nathan answered, “We’re working with a real estate agent, and hope to have something educational in there, like a learning center…by September.”

The superintendent also touched on the tax cap: “It passed the Senate, and is in the Assembly.”

He explained if it were to pass, it would affect the 2012-13 budget. “Then the tax levy could only be two percent or CPI (consumer price index). Currently, the CPI is 1.6 percent. That means the tax levy couldn’t be higher than 1.6 percent, which means slashing programs,” he said.

To pass a higher tax levy, a supermajority (60 percent) would be needed.

“Would we also have to lose another school [like Bower]?,” asked Charles Clyne, Lindenhurst resident and .

“No, that’s not something on the table. I don’t think we could do that,” said Nathan.

The board, he noted, used some reserves to preserve programs. Of the $5.4 million the district had in reserves, the board voted to use $2.2 million for the 2011-12 budget – a one-time fix that could be back on the table if the budget fails.

The board could opt to remove the reserves from the budget should it fail, and cut programs. “They have the legal option to do it, but I’m not saying the board would,” Nathan noted.

“Have you considered increasing class sizes in the middle and high schools to save programs?” asked Regina Cuffaro, PTA president.

“Everything would be on the table, but I’ve been in the classrooms in both schools, and there are really no empty seats,” Nathan said.

The board also has the option to go straight to contingency if the budget fails. “That would be 120 percent of CPI multiplied by two, which is 1.92 percent. So the tax levy would go from 6.89 to 6.3 percent,” he explained.

“I honestly don’t think that board has made nay decision yet, and the sentiment is they hope it’ll pass. If it doesn’t, then they’ll have to reconvene and make decisions,” said Nathan.

“But if did go to contingency, what about programs?” asked Julie Bartolommeo, second vice president of the PTA Council, which hosted the at . Bartolommeo's also a current board candidate.

“The board could decide to go out with a second vote with less programs,” said Nathan.

“But what programs? Athletics or educational?” asked Tracy Baum, a parent involved with the PTA. “There are still four to five coaches for football, wrestling, basketball, with personal trainers for each. You cut some coaches. But will you look there?”

He answered Baum by explaining that he feels educational programs were important to maintain, especially full day kindergarten.

Nathan also pointed to increasing transportation costs as negatively affecting the tax levy, despite cutting transportation last year at a savings of $750,000.

Also negatively affecting the tax levy, according to Nathan, are:

• State aid cuts totaling $6.5 million this school year and next, translating to approximately a four percent tax levy increase.
• Continued increases in the teacher ($1.2 million) and employee ($0.5 million) retirement systems and healthcare costs ($1 million) that translate to roughly a 3.5 percent tax levy increase.

“If it weren’t for mandated costs, we would’ve had a less than zero budget increase,” asserted Nathan. Currently, the $140.2 million budget represents a 2.23 percent year-over-year increase.

In addition, Nathan mentioned that having to meet current contractual obligations for all employees was also negatively impacting the tax levy.

“The Taylor Law includes the Triborough Amendment which prevents a public employer from altering any terms of an expired labor agreement until a new agreement is reached,” Nathan explained. “So if steps are in place and there are raises with credits taken in place, employees still get those. It’s not something we like, but it’s in place and we have to respect it.”

That led to Nathan noting, “We are working to try and negotiate with the teachers’ union, [TAL].”

“We are still in negotiations. We are still talking,” TAL President Rose Russo and First Vice President John Mansfield later told Lindenhurst Patch.

However, isn’t the only bargaining unit with contracts expiring in June; five of six units have contracts that have expired or will expire, and the board is in talks with each of them.

Nathan noted in 2009-10 several bargaining units agreed to a zero percent salary increase while the administrators’ unit agreed to a one percent salary increase. And in 2010-11 the clerical unit agreed to a second year of a zero percent salary increase.

“We continue to negotiate with all the units,” Nathan said.