Tuckahoe School Board Adopts $17.1 Million Budget

The adopted a $17.1 million budget for the 2011-12 school year on Monday evening, a spending increase of about 3.5 percent.

If passed by Tuckahoe voters on May 17, the budget will pose a 6.2 percent increase in the tax rate, up from $6.40 per $1,000 of assessed property value to $6.80. The owners of a property in the district assessed at $400,000 could expect to pay $2,720, up from $2,560 this year. .

Part of the 6.2 percent tax rate increase can be attributed to the total assessed value of properties in the district dipping 3.3 percent.

The increase in the tax levy will be 2.8 percent, the lowest it has been in 10 years, according to Ed Joseph, the business official.

The budget was unanimously adopted following a short presentation by school board Chairman Robert Grisnik, during which he explained that despite , the board believes the budget represents financial prudence while helping to achieve the district's goal to provide quality education. State aid will decrease 9.9 percent, a cut of $82,332, bringing the total for 2011-12 to $943,935. That number includes an internal transfer of $190,019 from the district's employee benefit accrued liability account, Joseph said. 

The board's presentation on the budget was vague on where cuts were being made, though Grisnik did mention that administrative salaries will be frozen. When questioned after the meeting, Superintendent Chris Dyer referred questions about the cuts to Joseph, who said he could not give specific information until later this week.

There were just a few comments from the approximately seven taxpayers who attended the meeting. In a lengthy prepared statement, Rick Sobrevinas noted that while he believes the district is doing well financially, he feels that too much of that money is tied up in capital reserve accounts, which are savings accounts the district can spend on capital improvement projects or property acquisitions approved by the public through a referendum.

“The school board has a fiduciary obligation to keep taxes as low as possible with specific objectives in mind,” Sobrevinas said. “I think we have reserves that are too big, which can only mean we have been taxed too much.”

Currently, there is $980,571 in the capital reserve fund, Joseph said. The maximum allowed in this account, as voted on by the public, is $2 million.

Sobrevinas went on to say that he believes the capital reserve fund is being used for the wrong reasons. In December, Sobrevinas and many other taxpayers fervently opposed as a residence for Dyer. The referendum was ultimately on Dec. 21. The district purchased the house and some adjacent property in 2009 for $1.1 million following a successful public referendum, though that purchase was later a source of contention among a faction in the district.

In response to Sobrevinas's comments, Joseph noted that the district has complied with every regulation regarding capital reserve and undesignated/unappropriated accounts. Under state law, a school district is only permitted to have 4 percent of its total budget in undesignated and unappropriated funds. If the amount goes above that percentage, the district is required to return the excess to the taxpayers.

Grisnik said that $170,000 from the undesignated fund will be given back to the taxpayers in the adopted budget, to help reduce the tax levy, which will bring the total amount in the school's undesignated fund to $511,841, or 3 percent of the total budget.

“We have heard the community about our reserves,” he said.