Pleasantville Board of Ed: No Plans to Exceed Tax Cap

When polled by Vice President Shane McGaffey Tuesday, Pleasantville's four present board of education members all said they do not anticipate overriding the state-mandated tax cap.

"There is no one on the board who would be comfortable at this point exceeding the tax cap [in the coming budget cycle]," McGaffey explained following the meeting.

Absent President Lois Winkler, Trustees Larry Boes, Louis Conte and Emily Rubin Persons said that being able to offer students a similar program to this year's is the most important consideration, and one they believe can be achieved without asking residents to vote for an override.

"Preliminarily, I think that I anticipated that we would be able to provide...a similar program next year as rigorous and successful..." noted Boes.

While Conte said, "I still need to hear more," he stated, "I would want to be under the cap if we could possibly do it and preserve the program."

The  February 12, put forth a figure in excess of the state's maximum tax levy increase (tax cap).

"...we really have to realize we are not going to be able to go forward with no tax increase at all," Rubin Persons pointed out on Tuesday. "There's definitely going to be an increase; it's just a matter of how high or low that increase is going to be."

Assistant Superintendent for Business David Quattrocchi presented a slightly lower preliminary budget figure on Tuesday—$46,467,876—which reflects retirements, leaves of absences; as well as Employment Retirement System, health care, high school instructional and athletic program adjustments, he said.

This figure is $1,167,545 more than the adopted 2012-13 budget, according to Quattrocchi.

Maintaining a program that comes in under the tax cap means the district will have to decide how much fund balance to use, McGaffey explained.

"We want to continue to step down," he told Patch. "We don't want to be in a situation three to four years from now where we are out of fund balance and have to make cuts just for that."

McGaffey said the board asked building principals to "provide us with four potential cuts in each building, just to analyze what we would be willing or not willing to cut to offset the step down of the fund balance," he explained.

He further clarified, "Just because we asked for 12 positions does not mean we are cutting 12 positions, but we have to look at them."

The bottom line?

"It's not just about our program next year, it's about the sustainability of the program forward," McGaffey stated. "It's not just about next year; it's about the next year and the future."

__

The public will be able to comment during a budget work session with the district's finance committee on Tuesday, March 12.