The following information is from the New York State School Boards Association. It outlines the issues and presents information about how to respond:

HELP STOP THE STATE TAX SHIFT TO SCHOOLS!

If the devil is truly in the details, he’s been working overtime in the education portion of the state budget proposals. With the state deficit at its worst in a generation and the deadline for passage of the state budget in the rear view mirror, both legislative houses and the governor have proposed significant cost shifts onto local school taxes. Your legislator needs to know that the loss of state aid must not be compounded by increased local costs. Everyone understands the state’s dire fiscal picture, but merely changing pockets to an already overburdened school property taxpayer is poor public policy. The list is long and includes:

1. Capping high cost special education aid for BOCES programs. Not only does this discourage services to our most challenged students, it begins to erode the state’s time honored approach to BOCES aid. The cost shift to local districts of one BOCES alone is over $13 million. While the state and schools have long shared a concern for the high cost of special educational services, simply capping payments to schools for mandated services is inequitable and damaging to both students and taxpayers alike.
    
2. Reduction of STAR payments to schools by $213 million and lowering the ceiling for STAR eligibility, forcing schools to increase local taxes in order to simply replace existing state revenue of $30 million. The governor’s proposal would also raise the total amount exempted from eligibility from 11% to 18%, which would further decrease the total state aid paid for STAR to school districts.
    
3. “Administrative Efficiency Aid” would provide “incentive aid” to school districts that have a lower ratio of students to administrators. This aid arose out of the governor’s repeated misstatement that 70% of school costs are administrative. (In fact, the 70% figure reflects all personnel costs and is a model for other states.) This “incentive aid” takes resources away from the foundation formula and simply gives it to large school districts (that by definition have more students per each administrator.) While the intention of this proposal may be worthwhile, it becomes an inequitable method of aid distribution.
    
4. School Resource Officers would be deployed elsewhere, leaving districts that have seen reductions in student violence, bullying, drug use and other crime to either eliminate this program or absorb its significant cost. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these officers provide an invaluable service by deterring inappropriate behavior, serving as counselors, first responders in emergencies and protectors of student safety.
    
5. Pre-School Special Education costs would be shifted from the county and state to local school taxpayers. Though the Committee on Pre School Special Education dictates the services provided and schools have no formal role, the state and county would nonetheless shift any cost increases above 2% onto local school taxpayers. Shifting the cost of state and federally required services onto a smaller tax base is once again, poor public policy.
    
6. School Special Education Summer School. For those districts offering a summer special education program, current state aid is 80%, with districts picking up 20% of the cost. Governor Paterson would base the state's payment on the Foundation Aid State Sharing Ratio. This presents a severe disincentive for districts to provide this vital service to our most disadvantaged children, who are particularly affected by a loss of continuity in instruction.

Despite Governor Paterson’s pledge to eliminate cost shifts to local taxpayers, all of these proposals are currently being negotiated as part of the final version of the state budget. The time to prevent their inclusion in that final state budget is now!

Call your Senator at (518) 455-2800 to say “Stop the cost shifts!”

Call your Member of Assembly at (518) 455-4100 to prevent the state from balancing its budget by inflating yours!

We agree and want to reaffirm that no services are being taken away from students. We are maintaining programs and making cuts from areas that do not affect instruction. In regard to reductions in pay or benefits, by law we are obligated to honor contracts. The District is also in negotiations with the teachers’ union at this time.

The District tries to maintain 70 degrees at elementary level and 68 degrees at secondary. The age and inefficiencies of the 40 plus year old heating systems do not always allow us to achieve the desired results. During the 2008-09 school year, the District entered into an energy performance contract with Honeywell. This project will enable the District to improve energy efficiency and upgrade heating and ventilation throughout the District as the current system is fairly antiquated. As a result of these changes, the District will realize cost savings and the environment will be greatly improved. All of these upgrades will be paid for by the energy savings and will be of no cost to the District.

Because field lights are not metered separately, there is no clear calculation of the hourly cost for lights. Depending on the event, the number of lights and the wattage plus transformer load, and other variables, the cost of usage varies. However, there is an estimate of about $6 per hour or $26 dollars for a four hour event with full lighting. In the fall, lights may be turned on when practices run late, but during the winter, they are not in use and in the spring, we have natural lighting until the early evening. Unless there is a scheduled event, the lights are not used.

Individual Coverage
The District pays 82% of the premium cost which is $6,025; the individual pays 18% which equates to $1,323.

Family Coverage
The District pays 82% of the premium cost which is $13,096; the individual pays 18% which equates to $2,875.

How is this determined?
As with any collective bargaining unit, the health insurance contribution and related terms are negotiated.

A few questions have been asked about the potential cost savings by reducing administrators. SOCSD does not have a high number of administrative positions; in fact, such positions as department chairs or a Director of Curriculum had been eliminated several years ago. With many mandates that relate to legal and regulatory compliance, there is a need to have personnel to not only oversee compliance but to work with staff to ensure that the District has a system of accountability in place. The District faces the potential of sanctions by the State and Federal authorities and is also subject to litigation for a variety of reasons. Such litigation is costly in terms of time and potential financial damages. While it may appear on the surface that some positions cited in questions, such as in the office of Human Resources or Special Education, are unnecessary, they are essential and represent real and potential savings to the District.

The elementary assistant principals were primarily added due to the size of the student population because we operate under the “Princeton” model of schools. The population in each building is in excess of 500 students. In addition, they are half-time positions with those in such roles either teaching or holding other District responsibilities. These individuals are also responsible for working with the principals and staff to deal with health and safety requirements that are related to the aforementioned matters of accountability and liability.

Any staffing reductions are being made because of enrollment reductions or because there is no longer a requirement or need to provide services to a student. Specific reductions to areas, such as teaching assistants or aides, are noted in the budget slideshow. Positions are being eliminated. However, because of attrition, there will be few layoffs.

We learned last year and this year that security is essential. While we have reduced security for times when students are not in the buildings, we have made other upgrades in both procedures and security equipment, such as cameras and alarms. However, student safety is first and foremost in our planning; therefore, we will continue with security guards during school sessions.

This does not affect ECP.  ECP is supported by State/Rockland Tuition and after reduced enrollment, it is projected that it will be of no cost to the District for 2010-11.

There have been no reductions to the athletic program. However, if the budget does not pass, we will be making reductions to the athletic program and will eliminate a portion of middle school inter-scholastics.

What is the total cost of special education?
The total budget projected for 2010-11 Programs for Students with Disabilities is reflected at $11,091,579. This is a decrease of $9,368 from the present budget. All efforts are being made to support our students in a free and appropriate public education in a cost efficient manner.

How well are our students performing?
The SOCSD students with disabilities continue to perform very well and meet with continued success. Our K-8 students with disabilities performed at the number one ranking for all Rockland schools on NYS testing this past year. In addition, our 9-12 students with disabilities performed at the number two ranking on Regents exams countywide. Last June, 2007 we had 84% and this June, 2008 we had 79% of our students receive Advanced Regents or Regents Diplomas upon graduation. In addition, our Regents results continue to show excellent passing rates. This, of course, is reflected by the cohort of students each year. However, it should be noted that our June, 2008 testing percentages have either remained the same or shown improvement in nine out of ten examinations.

Given that we are in the midst of a major technological shift and that our children will need a vastly different set of skills than many of us needed when we graduated from school, technology has become a new fundamental for education.

For 2010-11, the district will be funding one-time only technology infrastructure costs that must be addressed in order to continue improving the District’s instructional technology needs in support of the 21st Century. For 2010-11, there is an increase in costs for data storage, inter-building connectivity (fiber), increased internet band width, additional network support due to increased equipment, increased instructional technology. Technology is 2.6% of the total budget.

The district has implemented a number of measures to ensure the cost-effectiveness of our use of technology. At the core of these measures is the standardization of the equipment used and maintenance procedures we employ. The district has standardized on “business class” workstations and laptops that have a longer life-cycle and reduced cost of ownership in comparison to other consumer level technology. By standardizing our computer images we can simplify and enhance the level of support required to maintain the technology. This allows us to decrease the time required to provide support. We also employ centralized and remote management tools that allows the district to support a large number of devices with fewer staff.

With the commoditization of component hardware, the price and performance gap has become nominal between desktop and laptop computers. In fact for a similarly configured machine, the price difference between a laptop and desktop is around $50. While the price of a laptop may be a little more, the added value of its’ ability to provide ubiquitous access to instructional resources far outweigh the slight difference in cost. The portable nature of a laptop provides the ability for a teacher or student to have access to the comprehensive knowledge base and extensive digital resources available via the Internet.

Ubiquitous computing is a post-desktop model for using technology to enhance teaching and learning. Students will have access to resources not normally available in the traditional classroom, and teachers will have the ability to utilize technology anytime and anywhere to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their teaching. Teachers will use the technology during their planning time, department, and team level meetings.

21st Century teaching and learning is grounded in the need for access to digital content and resources – laptops provide increased levels of access not easily achieved by a traditional desktop physically located in a single place.

The district supports the maintenance of our technology infrastructure and the implementation of new technologies by leveraging multiple funding sources. The district utilizes alternative funding sources such as cooperative leasing programs and grant funding opportunities. Cooperative leasing via BOCES provides competitive lending rates, large volume discount pricing, and the eligibility for State Aid. Grant funding also provides the district with funds to support the implementation of new technologies in our schools at no additional upfront costs to our community. The district is leveraging federal funding from both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Foreign Language Assistance Program Grants (FLAP) to implement additional Smartboards and a new foreign language lab. The district’s primary goal is to provide the instructional technology resources to our school community in the most cost-effective and financially responsible manner. We continue to maximize the use of alternative funding sources and innovative technologies to reduce the district’s “Total Cost of Ownership” for our technology resources.

There is currently proposed legislation that would provide for the use of a five-year average of the CPI in computing the contingency budget cap for 2010-11. If that were to occur, the District’s budget would be less than the contingency cap. However, based on the current formula, the contingency would be zero. The details of the contingency are described in the budget book.

Moody's has issued SOCSD a Aa3 bond rating, the highest within the County of Rockland. If the budget is voted down, the rating agencies might interpret that negatively and it would likely result in a down grading of our bond rating, which in turn would result in a higher interest rate for any future borrowings.

There was a recommendation in 2001 to replace all of the District’s roofs. The most recent repairs were completed in 1985 which is almost 25 years ago. There was a recommendation in 2001 to replace all of the District’s roofs. These were re-roofing projects with a ten year life expectancy. The roofs are leaking in all of the buildings. As a result, there is damage to building structures and health and safety risks related to air quality and mold.  Where roof leaks have soaked existing insulation, there is little or no remaining insulating value, which increases the District’s energy costs. Recently installed roofs are not addressed by the project.

The District issued a required RFP (Request for Proposal) and received packages from over a dozen architectural/roofing firms. Six firms were interviewed and references were checked. All of these firms conducted on site reviews of the roofs on each school in the District. KG&D of Mount Kisco, an experienced architectural firm with experience in roofing design projects was selected. They then conducted a more detailed follow-up study of the roofs following the March blizzard. The District issued a required RFP (Request for Proposal) and received packages from over a dozen architectural/roofing firms. Six firms were interviewed and references were checked. All of these firms conducted on site reviews of the roofs on each school in the District. KG&D of Mount Kisco, an experienced architectural firm with experience in roofing design projects was selected. They then conducted a more detailed follow-up study of the roofs following the March blizzard.  (In 2005, the District commissioned thermal roof scans to identify active leaks. These surveys were referenced in the preparation of the proposed budgets.)

It is estimated that it will cost the District $10 - $12 million to replace all roofs. The good news is that the community has supported the District’s effort to develop a Capital Reserve for the purpose of funding projects, such as a roof replacement. The District will be asking voters to allow it to transfer $2.2 million dollars from the reserve fund to begin the work on the roofs. This will enable the District to begin work this summer on two of the most critical roof surfaces. This will not impact taxes. In the meantime the District is exploring the use of the balance of its reserve for work in the summer of 2011. The District is reviewing other funding options to complete the project.

It is not feasible to complete all of the projects at one time. The Department of Education may not approve all projects at once. In addition, because the District has construction related to energy performance (energy efficiency and conversation improvements) contracts, all of the projects could not be completed at the same time.

The architect has suggested a multi-year plan that is driven by needs and logistics. Most of the roof surface needs to be replaced – at all five school buildings. In total, the District needs to replace about 86% of its roof area. The District has 512,000 square feet of roofing (about 12 acres); approximately 439,000 square feet will be replaced as part of the proposed roof projects.