How Much More Can Commack School Taxpayers Take?

School budget season is here and Commack taxpayers will yet again be asked to dip into their pockets to close this year’s hair-raising budget gap of $10 Million, which is nearly double last year’s gap of $5.3 Million. I say…Ouch! 

What about the 2% tax levy cap, you ask? Well that is apparently a misnomer, as the true level of each school district’s cap depends on application of the State’s formula.  Commack’s $10 Million increase represents a 4.73% tax levy.  The district alternatively says that with more cuts the gap could be reduced to $8 Million with a 3.43% tax levy. The district’s so called last dreaded option could reduce the gap to $7 Million with a 2.73% tax levy.  Commack taxpayers are faced with the dilemma of choosing a $7, $8 or $10 Million budget or having the resolve to just vote down the budget altogether.  http://www.commack.k12.ny.us/budget13/budgetfacts.asp   

As one would think, this is not going over too well and the number crunching crowd is paying attention and questioning whether the District being totally honest in its budget presentation.  Some residents who spoke at the budget meeting last Thursday believe the budget presentation is misleading, because it claims that the most recent data (from 2009 - 2010) shows the cost per pupil in Commack is $20,094.  I agree with their assessment.  It’s pretty clear, that by using this 3-year old data the district is trying to dupe unwary taxpayers into thinking Commack’s costs are lower than in reality.  While I like to give Dr. James the benefit of the doubt, his claim that $20,094 cost from 2009 is the most recent provided by the State appears totally bogus.  The $22,535 cost per pupil for 2011 and the current spending per pupil of $23,660 (2012-13) have been posted on NYSED’s Property Tax Report Card since May 2012.  Check it out yourself at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/propertytax/ - bottom of page under 2012-13 “Budget enrollment data.”  Amazingly, Dr. James refused to accept the updated costs even though offered the copy from NYSED’s website as proof.  To me, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the district is being purposely deceptive.  Why would the district avoid using the most recent $23,660 number or explain that the upcoming budget will boost the cost per pupil to around $25,000?  It’s a good bet that its because advertising that the costs per pupil has risen nearly 25% in 3 years would not be good for its public relations, especially when inflation rose a total of only 6.2% during this same time period.  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/

While I am on this same subject, there was also an exchange with residents regarding how the district’s cost per pupil is calculated.  Dr. James insisted it was some complex formula, yet the residents argued it was simply arrived at by dividing the total budget by the number of students.  Out of sheer curiosity, I went home and tested the residents’ division theory going back to 2006 and every time the cost per pupil for each year came out exactly the same (when rounded out) as reported in NYSED’s Property Tax Report Card.  Coincidence? I‘ll leave it up to you decide what to make from this... but some complex formula, eh! just saying.  Dr. James was also asked who the “similar” school districts were which the district compares itself to in its budget presentations - as they are not named.  I thought that a fair question, otherwise how would anyone possibly verify the comparisons used are correct?  Dr. James refused to disclose the identity of these “similar” districts claiming it would be improper.  I ask, how so? No one requested that he publish the names of the “similar” districts, just that he identify them so the info. could be confirmed.  So to me, that was a pretty lame response which makes me question the accuracy and reliability of the district’s comparisons.   

Dr. James confirmed that a big chunk of the budget’s increase this year is a result of contract raises due to district employees.  According to what’s on the district’s website, Commack teachers are in the final year of their contract and due a nearly 6% increase (2.85% raise + 3% step). http://www.commack.k12.ny.us/contracts/contracts.asp Pretty nice gain considering inflation last year was only 1.7% and that this year is estimated to also run less than 2%.  http://myweb.rollins.edu/wseyfried/forecast.htm  How many of us will get a 6% raise this year? Not me. How many of us over the past few years of this country’s economic mess have continued to receive annual salary increases well above the rate of inflation? I certainly haven’t, nor have any of my friends – at least those who are lucky enough to still have jobs.  Despite the ongoing economic malaise, don’t count on any concessions from the Commack teachers’ union, as, unlike teachers in other districts, they have apparently refused to re-negotiate their contract.  If you think about it, why should the unions re-negotiate when they know full well that the majority of Commack’s residents are suckers who always vote in favor of passing the budget – no matter how high the $$ increase.  I am one of those suckers myself, but not anymore.

I understand the need for, and have no quarrel with, school tax increases or giving district employees raises, but how do we keep paying for them at this current pace?  They are simply out of control here and throughout Long Island.  It's like the boiled frog phenomenon: they say if you try to put a frog into boiling water, it will naturally do everything to avoid immersion. But if you put a frog into room temperature water, and then put the water with the frog in it on the stove to boil, the frog won't notice and will remain in the water even as it is boiled alive.  Here, it’s the taxpayer’s that are slowly being boiled alive by the ever-increasing school taxes.

In 2000, Commack’s school budget was around $80 Million. Today it stands at $180 Million – a $100 Million increase.  This increase becomes even more startling when you consider that in 2001-2002, Commack’s enrollment was 7,045 and cost per pupil $12,142.  In comparison, current enrollment is only 200 students more at 7,242 but the cost per pupil nearly $25,000. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/repcrd2003/overview-analysis/580410030000.pdf In the early 2000’s Commack was also a Blue Ribbon school district, but hasn’t been so since.  My point being, Commack had the same great schools and the teachers taught just as well back then as they do today - but for less than half of today’s proposed budget? This seems to undercut any argument that more spending equates to better performance. I find this to be quite a sobering fact, which leads me to ask what have we taxpayers and our kids really gained educationally or otherwise from this $100 Million increase?  I don’t think we have gained much if anything, to the contrary our kids have lost many good young teachers and have had their clubs and programs slashed each and every year.

Looking ahead, at this rate, next year’s budget will close in on $200 Million.  How much more can we take?  When will the madness end?  Does the district and its employee unions believe that we taxpayers have a never-ending money supply? or that we can just print money out of thin air like the FED?  How can seniors and others on fixed incomes continue to afford to live here?  Our children will certainly not be able to do so.  If you look on Zillow.com you’ll see there are nearly 250 houses up for sale in Commack (not including those homes in East Northport that pay Commack school taxes).  The question is with our school taxes continuously rising unabated who is going to buy them?  More importantly, how are all of us folks that remain going to be able stay here? Who is going to buy our homes when the time comes when we too are finally forced to move?  Unless real changes are made soon, Commack’s school district as well as others in L.I. are doomed - just as sure as this Country will be too, if it keeps printing money out of thin air and adding to its $16.7 Trillion debt.