RSS 2.0 FeedFebruary 24, 2011, Bellmore Life
CHSD budget draft finds little for synthetic turf Board’s straw poll could keep field vote from public
Residents learn the cost of upgrading to a turf field, etc.
Believing as they have for months now that synthetic turf will not be installed on CHSD fields anytime soon, advocates for the turf nonetheless called on the Central High School District’s Board of Education – during last week’s first draft 2011-2012 budget meeting – to allow residents to vote yes or no for the turf during May’s budget vote, and resolve the issue once and for all.
And in what perhaps was a symbolic vote by the board after a spirited debate among its members, it did just that: voting 6-2 against bringing synthetic turf to the residents for a vote in May.
But at least one attendee in the packed house who came to listen to the budget proposal – about how much was available to spend, about what deep cuts would have to be made and about some bright spots, too – got a clear answer to what he was looking for:
The ballpark cost to residents of the district per year – without variables such as environmental issues, unsettled county assessment issues, a new sewer tax, increasing or decreasing tax levy issues, Nassau County guarantee issues and MTA tax issues, as examples – was calculated to be between $1.58 per $100 of assessed value at the low end and $2.28 per $100 of assessed value per year at the high end, over an 8-10-year period.
“And it will be different for every single house,” remarked board Trustee Diane Seaman to Merrick resident Eric Strezenec, who implored the board to reveal once-and-for-all to the community how much synthetic fields would cost homeowners out of their pockets each year.
“That’s all I wanted to hear,” Mr. Strezenec said, after board Vice-President Dr. Matthew Kuschner read the figures to him.
Serious cuts
To bond or to tax for new synthetic turf fields was foremost on board officials and many attendees minds as they listened to breakdowns of the newly proposed $134, 579,157 budget – with a $103,812,167 tax levy, or 8.4% increase – for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
The draft calls for the elimination of 13-25 teachers and noninstructional staff members, and the possible elimination of assistant coaches, while it reveals drastically dwindling reserves that help appropriate monies to pay down real costs.
For example, the unemployment insurance reserve, with a balance of $342,000 in 2010, appropriated $50,000 in funds creating a balance of $292,000 for the 2010-2011 year. With $192,000 expected to be appropriated during the 2010-11 year, “If we laid off teachers and staff, that reserve would be used up very quickly, would it not?” asked Ms. Seaman.
“Reserves are like savings accounts,” Alan Yu of the accounting firm Cullen and Danowski told attendees, saying that each reserve was set aside to pay for an intended purpose.
He said that General Municipal Law tells a school board it can only use the reserves, or savings, in that fund for the purpose it was developed for, such as the insurance reserve to pay for any uninsured losses, or the unemployment insurance reserve, which pays for unemployment insurance.
Popular target
A popular reserve, and the target of many in the community who believe it can be opened up to pay for other projects outside its intended purpose, is the Accrued Benefit Liability Reserve, or ABLR. This reserve pays monies to school officials and teachers for their accrued time contracted to them but not used when they leave the job, as well as for retirement benefits.
Historically, the reserve has topped the $10 million mark, and appropriations (payouts) have only been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly – because the school district has fairly young teachers and staff – leaving millions left.
Those millions have been the target of advocates of synthetic fields, such as former CHSD board member John Pinto who, at the meeting, insisted that state Assemblywoman Earlene Hooper had introduced a bill that would allow those millions to be accessed.
Mr. Pinto appeared to be pinning his hopes on the new legislation, as he said to the board that “I don’t want to see a bond floated or taxes go up” to pay for new fields.
But the board seemed more concerned about what Mr. Yu called the fund’s $8 million liability, even while the balance was in the $7 million range. With such a large liability, the board may be unable to access the funds for future appropriations.
