It’s no secret that local school board elections are some of the most important and impactful elections in which a citizen can participate. It’s also no secret that they absorb the lion’s share of cynicism and disdain out of all local-level elections.
We can’t argue with some of the sentiments of annoyance, inconvenience, and doubt, but we also can’t say that it’s all perfectly deserved either.
In short, no one likes their taxes going up. Better yet, no one likes the sheer idea of their taxes going up. In one of the most heavily-taxed places in the country, it’s a perennial question of exactly which straw will break the camel’s back, because it seems like there can be an awful lot, and yet, the top hasn’t exactly caved in, at least not yet.
Like a double-stacked tower of Jenga blocks, we carefully tap on a block that seems like it’ll be an easy move, only to find ourselves beating around the bush, resorting to other means. Each attempt feels like an eternity, accompanied by a royal-blue face as we won’t let our breath go until we have at least an illusion of safety.
Jenga has some variety in terms of house rules. In some cases, you can tap on as many blocks as you’d like until you find a feasible move. According to others, you have to carefully eyeball the tower, as when you make a selection, you must commit and either pass the anxiety on to the next player, or end the game with a bad move.
Luckily, some of the school board budget propositions subscribe to the former rule, and not the latter, at least not entirely. In the case of Sachem Central School District, the proposed budget for Tuesday’s ballot is a 4.87% tax levy increase that pierces the cap, which accounts for an approximate increase of $27 per household per month. The upside is that all current programming, offerings, and support are retained, but the downside is that seventy-three positions districtwide will be reduced.
The way the aforementioned Jenga rule analogy works is that if the budget fails on Tuesday, residents can then approve or reject a 1.92% increase, which is at the tax cap, on June 18. The budget would see an approximate increase of $11 per month, but would come with significant drawbacks.
Class sizes would be increased districtwide. The following eliminations would occur: five social workers, the partnership with Northwell Health, all elementary school clubs, all middle school sports, all JV sports at both high schools, and overnight trips (including the senior trip). Additionally, it would reduce funding by 50% for all secondary clubs, including Marching Band, Robotics, DECA, and others, it would reduce the number of school librarians, elementary, middle school, and high school music offerings, and middle school World Language offerings.
If that revote fails, then the contingency budget would be enacted. It would see a 0% increase in taxes, but it would eliminate the transfer of $9,000,000 to capital projects and all equipment purchases totalling $436,100.
Plus, it would include all the reductions from the budget revote in which the increase remains at the tax cap.
So, while a near-5% increase seems like a large enough figure at which to balk, is the second option really worth it? We’re not a fan of increased taxes, but forgoing taxes for the sake of the principal might just be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
At this point, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. You could pay more per year to retain current programming, or you could save a slight amount in property taxes to watch the value of your community assets diminish significantly.
We’re not endorsing a specific choice on this one, or for any budget proposition in any school district that we cover, for that matter. We leave that decision up to the taxpayer, because at the end of the day, it’s your districts and you know them best. We use Sachem as an example as it pertains to our three townships of coverage, but also because it’s a stark example of what may or may not be in store for your district in light of the recent decisions by Albany.
It’s an inconvenient choice that really isn’t as zero-sum as we’d like; there’s a distinct disadvantage to either option. But at what cost does each one truly come?
For this one, we’ll lay the blame squarely on Albany Democrats for approving a budget with these types of slashes. As much as our Republican representatives tried and wielded their power on committees and in budget hearings, Albany still had their way.
We can understand wanting to cut down on State spending in light of fluctuating district enrollment, and we can also understand a possible rework to the “hold harmless” formula as it severely impacts downstate schools significantly more than it does upstate schools. Downstate school districts are funded about 70% with property taxes, whereas upstate districts hover around about 30%. It’s a deep contrast that can’t be solved with a one-size-fits-all provision.
However, if more than $2 billion was not being prioritized to people who broke our country’s immigration laws, are being harbored by the State and NYC, given benefits, phones, debit cards, and lodging – all while they complain and assault our police officers – residents of the Sachem Central School Districts, and possibly others, might not have been fronted with such an inconvenient decision. Furthermore, if Governor Hochul truly addressed the problems that have led to anemic outstate migration, we might not even have to have the conversation of district enrollment reduction, prompting the need for shifted State aid, or at least not as much of a conversation.
New York’s problems truly do trickle down to the local level. Had New York leaders had a vision to keep the state habitable decades ago, we could have probably gotten off scot-free this year, or at least had decisions that didn’t make us quite as nauseous.
In the end, a decision is only as inconvenient as you make it. This Tuesday, make “future you” thank “past you” with your vote.
