| Author |
Message |
    
MAPLE
Citizen
Username: Maple1234
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:40 am: | 
|
Did anyone see this mornings cover of the star ledger? Apparently according to their statistics towns like livingston and millburn got 2-3 timmes more school construction state aid than our district. Maplrwood $3.7 million or about or $593 per student, Millburn $8.9 million or $2055 per student and Livingston $5.6 million or $1096 per pupil. Wait here is another one West Orange $10.9 million or $1723 per student. With all our budget probelms and the schools in less than perfect shape how could or aministators/board let this happen. Its bad enough that these districts have a wide achievement gap between our district but for them in some cases getting 2/3 times more funding thats unacceptable in my eyes. What do you all think? |
HobGoblin
Citizen
Username: Hobgobblin
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
I have heard the idea of funding schools by adding a county tax. This would eliminate the property school tax. This way everyone would pay.
Did anyone else hear this idea? |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
When I read the article I got the impression that the amounts received were very much influenced by what was requested and which projects requested were then funded. So I couldn't tell from the information given whether we should be unhappy with our district for not making enough/appropriate requests or with the state for turning down requests from here. However, I also noted that it was stated that many "middle income" districts lost out because they were strapped for raising the funds for the local share of the costs of such projects. Although they were considering DFG I to be "high income", it seemed likely to me that this could also apply to us. There wasn't enough information in the article to know what really happened with respect to SO/M in this case, so I'd really like to know more. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 501
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Just some quick back of the envelope calculations.
If M'wood/SO got $3.7 million in State school construction aid, it would seem to mean that we also taxed ourselves to the tune of about $5.5 million for the construction projects.
If we had wanted to get as large a share of State aid as Millburn did, that tax number would have been $13.35 million.
While most of the tax burden is deferred, as I presume most, if not all, of the construction projects are funded through bond proceeds, the deferral only increases the ultimate tax burden as we have to pay the interest on the bonds over their life.
If we need to make capital improvements within the School District, the 40% State matching funds definitely help us. But to the extent that someone may infer that we got short changed because a neighboring town got more, methinks that they may have missed something.
TomR
By the way, does anybody know if we issued the bonds which had been authorized for construction of additional middle school classrooms and a dance studio? If so, for what were the proceeds used? |
Nob
Citizen
Username: Nob
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
These SCC funds are matching funds for various construction projects. Millburn has just added additions to 5 elementary schools and had additions to Middle School and High School in 1999. Am assuming, Maplewood has not had to do much construction since 1999 when "state matching" funds first became available; therefore Maplewood has not received much under this program. If Millburn hadn't sold 2 schools in the 70's, they wouldn't have needed to pay for the 5 elementary additions -- the "matching funds" are nice but it would have been better to have saved the money in the first place and not sold those schools. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Nob, Maybe not. SO/M also closed some schools around 1980 and when the population grew again, it was determined that it was cheaper to add on to the remaining schools than to reopen some of the ones that had been closed. It wasn't so much a matter of the cost of the updating that would have been required as the cost of staffing--having another principal, secretary, nurse, librarian, etc. for relatively few classrooms. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page