Washington Twp. School Board Forgoes Capital Project to Alleviate Tax Burden

The has decided to lighten the tax levy on the township's residents by adding additional state aid to its 2011-12 budget rather than using it on a new project. 

The decision was reached unanimously by the board at its March 1 work session at . The board felt that it was necessary to forgo any new projects in order to give taxpayers a much-welcomed break.

The state grant totaled $409,565. According to District Business Administrator Liz George, the district needs to pay approximately $29,000 back to the state for the cost the district accrued for capital project grants, leaving the district with around an additional $380,000 it could have chosen to include for a capital project.

“We talked about some capital projects that hadn’t been incorporated (into the budget prior to the grant),” said George. “We incorporated no capital projects because we felt we couldn’t afford them this year.”

The board’s finance committee came up with two options for the money, both of which involved giving at least some of it back to the residents: either incorporate all of the money to put the board even further below its 2 percent tax cap, or use approximately $230,000 on renovations of the ’s north gymnasium bathrooms. Following the renovations, the district would then return the remaining amount to the general fund within the budget, in turn decreasing the tax levy.

While the bathroom facilities—particularly, those up for replacement—are aging alongside the Middle School building itself, it was a problem that the board decided could be addressed in another year. This was, in part, because of the notion that the budget may not pass without lowering taxes as much as possible for the voters.

“I think (tax relief) is very important; I don’t see the budget passing without it, and that’s a concern,” said Board of Education member Pete Graziano. “We have a lot more than $300,000 to lose here—a lot more.”

“Choices are choices, and I think the choice is to defer the project,” continued Graziano.

Whereas renovating the bathroom facilities would have set the school board’s tax levy at 1.47 percent for the upcoming school year, the non-inclusion of the project in the district’s 2011-12 budget virtually cuts the levy in half, setting it at 0.72 percent.

The decision, however, was not an easy one. Several board members recognized that delaying the renovation project could prove more financially taxing on the school district in the future, especially if the bathroom facilities reach a point where they are no longer functional.  

“Not having money to do those capital projects in the future is going to make it more difficult to get it done over time,” noted Graziano.

“This is going on 2-3 years of delaying our plan of the infrastructure,” added finance committee chair Chance Healy. “These are critical issues, and I’m OK with delaying it another year, (but) we need to get back in gear.”

Even with the difficulty of the decision to not upgrade the restroom facilities, the board seems to expect the decision to be popular with taxpayers when it comes time to vote on the budget.

“It’s a gamble,” said Healy. “I think it’s the right gamble, given the climate.”

Most importantly, the district does not anticipate having to cut any educational programs with this move putting it so far below the 2 percent cap.

“Just the fact that we are debating this is a positive economic sign,” said District Superintendent Jeff Mohre. “Regardless of the outcome, I think we can be very proud of the fact that we have delivered a tentative budget that at the very least maintains the programs and services in place for our children, and in many cases, enhances them.”

The district is set to submit its preliminary budget to the county by the March 4 deadline. Following that, there will be a public budget hearing in which an official draft is presented by the Board of Education on March 22. The public will then have time to weigh the issues before the final vote on Wednesday, April 27.