|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on May 30, 2014 7:02:21 GMT -5
Three school districts had there budgets defeated on May 20, all were attempting to override the tax cap. Sayville and West Babylon will be presenting revised (reduced) budgets, within the tax cap, on June 17. But not Bridgehampton. Bridgehampton will re-vote the same budget that was defeated, risking a tax levy freeze if they fail to win by the required 60% super majority. Salient points for Bridgehampton: - Proposed Budget Increase = 9.93% (let's call it ten percent)
- Resulting Tax Levy Increase = 8.76% (we'll go with that: 8.76%)
- Total Budget = $12.3 Million
- Enrollment = 138 students (!)
- Cost per Pupil = $89,130.43 (let's call it ninety thousand dollars per student!)
- First Vote: 134 Yes - 113 No; 54% with 60% required to pass (short 15 votes)
- At Risk: $1.23 Million forced budget cuts if 60% super majority is not attained, a 10% budget cut!
Safe to assume that the 113 "No" votes will become 113 "Hell NO!" votes on June 17th. So, in order to attain 60% and pass the cap-busting budget, they will have to increase voter turnout. If they add 15 new "Yes" voters, and presuming that all prior "Yes" voters return and vote "Yes" again (really?  ), then they will need 158 votes to pass the budget, but would probably fall short by 8 votes if the community sentiment remains the same, because the base will have increased but the 60% requirement is in the total vote (base). Also, assuming that all new (additional) voters will be "Yes!" voters...well we all know where that gets you. Can't wait to see how this turns out! Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on May 31, 2014 7:48:16 GMT -5
Considering the possible motivations for a Board of Education to undertake a "dangerous" course of action, one possible motive could be to set the stage for a constitutional challenge to the so-called "Tax Cap" (which does not really cap taxes unless a school budget is defeated—twice).
The "nuclear option" ensconced in the NY Tax Cap law is the tax levy 'freeze' which is mandated upon a school district that cannot pass an over-cap budget by a 60% super majority after two votes. That operation of the tax cap could put a school district squarely at odds with its bond covenants and the two NYS pension systems. Although debt service and pension fund contributions as excluded from the computation of each school district's tax cap, once a tax levy freeze is imposed, the district still must come up with the money to pay all legitimate obligations.
In long-established NY case law, bond holders are protected by the Constitution's Contracts Clause from legislative erosion of covenants, especially those linking revenue sources to the debt service on their bonds. MTA bridge and tunnel tolls are "protected" revenue sources for MTA bond holders; the State Legislature was prohibited by the Court of Appeals from reducing or eliminating tolls on MTA facilities. I would presume that school districts ability to levy taxes would be likewise protected, if challenged in court. But, in order to raise such a challenge, there would first need to be an actual case where a school district's ability to levy taxes was impaired, e.g. by the operation of a "tax cap".
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jun 16, 2014 12:49:24 GMT -5
Tomorrow (Tuesday, June 17th) is the BIG DAY for little Bridgehampton's second attempt to pass the Island's biggest tax increase, and well above the tax cap.
Their risk of failure is extremely high, given the prescribed consequence of a tax levy freeze if they fail to pass a budget tomorrow.
In the face of a tax levy freeze, they do have some unusual potential options, given their very small size (K-12 in one, small school building, where the principal is also the Superintendent).
One option could be to stop teaching secondary grades and send their 7-12 graders to neighboring school districts. Or they could close the entire building and farm-out all their kids. Or, perhaps they have made just enough noise about doing either of those things that the community has gotten the message and will approve the budget this time around?
While it is titillating to watch this tempest in a teapot unfold in Bridgehampton, I have been reminded that neither of the other two re-votes is a slam-dunk, especially not Sayville, where their first budget failed to gain even a simple majority of the vote. I would not care to speculates about the outcomes in any of these places (West Babylon being the other re-vote), If I had to handicap these votes, all I would risk stating is that I won't be surprised if West Babylon is the only one of the three districts' whose budget passes on tomorrow's re-vote.
I would be mildly surprised if Bridgehampton's budget does not fail, because a 60% supermajority is required to pass it, and the tax increase in insultingly high.
Stay tuned!
Regards,
Chris Wendt
PS- Speaking of slam-dunks, how about those San Antonio Spurs!
And where do you think Lebron James will be playing next season? Cleveland, or Brooklyn?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jun 18, 2014 5:30:10 GMT -5
All three re-voted school district budgets passed yesterday, June 17, 2014. Bridgehampton (Re-submitted identical budget) Budget passed by 62.3% (60% was required to pass) Budget of $12.3 million will increase the tax levy by 8.76%Sayville (Revised Budget) Budget passed by 75.9% (50+% was required to pass) Budget of $90.0 million will increase the tax levy by 1.22%West Babylon (Revised Budget) Budget passed by 72.5% (51+% was required to pass) Budget of $99.3 million will increase the tax levy by 1.36%
Now, imagine if there were no re-votes allowed. Sayville & West Babylon would never have put up their ridiculous tax cap-busting "trial" budgets in the first place, and all the expense and aggravation of holding two votes would have been avoided. Bridgehampton would probably be on super-austerity, dealing with a tax levy freeze next year (2014-15 school year). There you have it... Chris Wendt |
|
), then they will need 158 votes to pass the budget, but would probably fall short by 8 votes if the community sentiment remains the same, because the base will have increased but the 60% requirement is in the total vote (base). Also, assuming that all new (additional) voters will be "Yes!" voters...well we all know where that gets you.