Afterschool, field trips up for debate in PCSD 2024-25 spending proposal

Line-by-line takes a deep dive into next year’s $147.5M budget plan, tax implications

March 28, 2024 at 2:04 a.m.

For the last three years, the Port Chester School District has been embracing an era of “new,” where an influx of state aid has brought a plethora of new programs and positions.

“People often see the shine, but not the sweat that has been required to get there,” Superintendent Dr. Aurelia Henriquez said, kicking off the Board of Education meeting on Thursday, Mar. 21, before she and fellow administrators went on to list many of those accomplishments—from establishing a human resource office, to new safety enhancements, to arts and orchestra programming.

This year, however, as significant budget-to-budget increases are no longer in play, the district is facing an era of stabilization while crafting the 2024-25 spending plan, where tighter financial circumstances must be discussed.

That night, the annual line-by-line presentation laid out projected spending featured in the proposed budget. However, the heated discussion that followed implied that figures are bound to change. The board was divided 3-2 in their philosophy of district prioritization, with propositions that would help families—like afterschool and field trip funding—on the table.

Budget basics: who foots the bill?

The $147.5 million budget proposal, which is subject to change as state aid numbers have not been finalized, represents a $4.6 million increase compared to the current year’s spending plan, or 3.25%.

While state aid is currently anticipated to increase by 3.62%, contributing $67.6 million to the funds, most revenues will come from property owners who are projected to be levied $73.3 million—that represents a 2.09% tax levy spike, which is the entire allowable increase per the tax cap.

The residential tax rate is anticipated to increase by 6 cents, to $13.03 per $1,000 of assessed home value.

Therefore, the average single-family home valued at $623,000—per the Town of Rye’s 2023 assessment roll—would see an average school tax of around $8,120. Last year, a home of that same assessment would have been taxed $8,080.

However, of note, assessments that are annually adjusted by the Town of Rye have changed—the average increased. Funding the 2023-24 budget, the average property had a house valued at $586,000 and paid a $7,600 school tax.

Neither of those average school tax estimates account for STAR exemption discounts.

Notably, there also has been a significant shift in the tax burden ratio, having pricy consequences for homeowners. Calculated every year by Rye Town’s assessment office, the homestead (residential) portion of the community is picking up more of the bill—in 2023-24 they were responsible for 50.6% of the tax levy, next year it will be 52.6%. Thus, commercial properties are seeing a burden reduction; their tax rate of $20.43 per $1,000 of assessed value represents a 45-cent decrease compared to the year prior.

Port Chester Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Facilities Philip Silano accurately emphasized that the school district has no control over burden ratios or home assessments.

Rollover expenses and new positions

The 2024-25 spending plan is relatively tight. After accounting for rollover costs and savings the district anticipates being able to garner, there is a little over $700,000 of additional monies to spend on new items, as announced with concern by Trustee George Ford.

A few new positions are slated to come, which are largely based on English language learner and special education compliance per state mandates.

The district plans to hire four bilingual special education teachers, a monolingual special education teacher, a bilingual science teacher, a world language teacher and a bilingual social worker. Additionally, it’s desired to employ a computer aide and grant writer “for the purpose of creating additional funding sources,” said Human Resources Executive Director Ivan Tolentino.

“Budget considerations also include facility upgrades and capital projects, continuing to look at our Building Conditions Survey,” said Henriquez. On the docket, the district is looking to upgrade and repair: a high school boiler, bathrooms, auditoriums’ sound and lighting and fields.

While Port Chester Schools was able to budget $8.65 million toward capital projects in the 2023-24 year, in planning for next year the administration proposes a slight decrease with $8.36 million to free up spending for other matters.

Most of the budget-to-budget increase boils down to staffing, with salaries and benefits increasing a cumulative $4.1 million—salaries are going up 3.73%, while benefits see a 5.19% spike. Insurance lines, specifically, are seeing an increase of over 7%.

Contractual expenses are also slated to increase by 28%, a $977,149 spike. Curriculum budgeting, Silano explained, makes up a lot of that.

“Curriculum is increasing by $956,000. The largest line item increasing is contractual services,” he said. “This is made up of three items: ARC (American Reading Company curriculum), which was being funded before by grants so now we must add to the budget, Innovare, which was also funded through grants, and the grant writer position.”

Ford questioned whether the grant writer will reduce the district’s need to occasionally contract third parties for similar assistance, to which Silano said not necessarily. “I don’t know if there’s one person who has knowledge of all possible grants,” he said. “I think the thinking here is we start off with trying to find companies with expertise.”

“In my mind, that person is going to be like a lead in managing the whole process,” Board of Education President Lou Russo added. “We’re hiring a dedicated person to help bring everything together. So, while this person may not have the expertise in every area, we can leverage up with what we’re doing already. It’s a combination of both. We can’t eliminate what we’re doing already, but we can add to it and make it more robust.”

“It’s concerning,” Ford sighed, “that we’re going to hire someone and still have these third-party costs.” Though Russo noted that he expects it’ll be a net gain.

At the end of the 2023-24 school year, Silano said he anticipates using unused funds to add $1.5 million to the tax certiorari reserve. Additionally, he anticipates putting $2.1 million toward the general fund balance to maintain its maximum 4% capacity.

Time out: concerns about athletics

Most budget lines saw little change, which drew some questioning from Board of Education members. Of most interest, for the trustees, was to see limited additional monies going toward athletics beyond the $1.2 million projected in the plan.

The $11,000 proposed increase only accounts for salaries in the athletic director’s office.

“Can we address why this is?” questioned board Vice President Sharon Burke.

“There’s no reason to increase those lines,” Silano responded. “Our athletic director has a plan in place to rotate out the uniforms…our equipment code has been sufficient to manage purchasing. There has not been a request to add additional coaches.”

“It strikes me as odd because we didn’t increase it last year either,” Burke responded. “And we know that we need some new equipment.”

She spoke to Facebook posts circulating, specifically one from community members asking for donations for balls. She found it difficult to believe additional funds aren’t crucial.

“I can say the athletic director has not come to me to say he can’t purchase balls,” Silano said. “If this wasn’t enough money, I have money available.” He justified that unbudgeted expenses happen all the time. When department heads need something they hadn’t predicted before, they’re able to go to him to find flexible funding.

“I ask that you go back to the athletic director and have a discussion. Just revisit this,” Ford said, agreeing with Burke. “I appreciate it if the staff is thinking about times when money was tight, but we should be able to buy new equipment and update things.”

Silano assured he’d look into it and get back to the school board.

“As a taxpayer, I feel we have a $147 million budget, there should be no issues with uniforms, grounds being kept,” Ford remarked. “I’m tired of seeing the things I see over and over, year after year, that we’re not addressing. Whether it’s the fields, building conditions, equipment, I’m tired of it.”

Debate ensues, adjustments to come

The 2024-25 budget proposal, as presented, included the new recommended positions.

In did not, however, incorporate proposals of interest to the community beyond that—and adding those in, which the Board of Education ultimately directed the district to look into on Mar. 21, proved to be contentious.

As Henriquez reminded, for the last few budget meetings the school board has been discussing whether the district should include funding for the elementary school spirit squads (a $12,000 expense), providing field trips for all classes (a $250,000 expense) and reducing the cost of afterschool programming for families (a $100,000 expense, potentially).

“After school is a little more complicated,” Henriquez said. “We’ve been awarded the REVOCs grant, but how that will play a role in reducing costs is not clear yet. There will be a discussion in terms of whether to further reduce that cost after the REVOCs grant is applied. The Carver Center is also pursuing grants on their own to further reduce the costs.”

Therefore, at this point, the proposal is to earmark $100,000 to offset afterschool prices. If it’s determined the money is not needed, the funds could be used elsewhere.

“If the board were to add these things in, where would the money come from?” questioned board member Chrissie Onofrio. In response, Silano reminded the board that state aid numbers haven’t been finalized, which could potentially bring in more funds. There may also be wiggle room with the fund balance.

“The third option is to cut other areas of the budget,” he said. “The one area that may be the easiest area to change would be the transfer to capital.”

However, some Board of Education members, such as Ford, are concerned about limiting infrastructure funds. He’d like to see monies prioritized toward capital—to keep on top of projects outlined in the Building Conditions Survey and prevent bottlenecking maintenance woes.

“We know there is work to be done at these schools. We heard over the years how we’ve been putting Band-Aids on things, and we need to stop doing that,” Ford said. Reducing the capital budget, he continued, “is concerning to me because we have a lot of work to do, and if we continue to reduce it each year, we won’t be able to get everything done.”

He additionally called on the struggles of their neighbors—the Blind Brook School District—who currently face strife over the degradation of their athletic fields, which have made them unusable as the district scrambles to find the money for repairs. In light of the Blind Brook reality, he proposed the Port Chester school board opt to put aside funds annually so they’re prepared when their relatively new athletics fields need fixing a decade from now.

Silano explained the way to do that would be setting up a capital reserve fund, as the district cannot earmark money in the budget unless it’s intended to be used that fiscal year.

He offered to send the trustees more information on the process, while adding: “I’m not here to say we should or shouldn’t start to plan for the replacement of the fields, but I am here to say we need to address the items that have been identified in the Building Conditions Survey. I think that’s a more pressing need right now.” He also validated Ford’s sentiment, stating it would be responsible to plan for the future while also allocating adequate monies toward projects annually.

Russo was not opposed to the idea, while noting in the past they had been unable to afford such long-term planning strategies because they needed the money for operations. However, in the balance of “learning from the past and living today,” he sees adding the spirit squad, field trip and afterschool funding as a greater priority.

Ford, notably, warned the district is “living beyond our means” and pulling money from other parts of the budget would not be worth it.

The $12,000 stipends for the spirit squads were not controversial—in the $147.5 million scale of the budget proposal, it should be an easy expense to fund. Field trips and afterschool programming were more hotly contested.

Onofrio worries about the sustainability of field trip financing. “The last thing I want to do is put something in there that we all get used to having and then we’re forced to cut it down the road,” she said. “I’m hesitant to add something we may have to take away.”

Ford returned to the Blind Brook Schools comparison and how they’re looking to cut field trip funding this year.

“We need to be very careful of spending. We don’t know what the state will do, won’t do, what next year brings, what will pass or change,” he said, noting they’re fortunate to not project an aid decrease next year, as many other districts are. “I don’t know how we’ll land going forward; we have to be protective of how we’re spending money.”

“As we’ve talked about before, we’re in a different fiscal situation now. We’ve heard those arguments in the past, too,” Russo said. “We’re in a position now to fund field trips, afterschool, the spirit squads. I think it would be reasonable. I understand the future is not as predictable as we’d like it…but if we’re able to do this this year, we should do it.”

“We could say ‘we don’t’ want to get people used to this,’ but you can say that about any program,” he continued.

Burke, after describing the educational benefit of field trips, said she’d be hesitant to see it as a potential reduction in the future. The board asked the district to provide a plan and cost analysis of what such financing would look like.

“As far as afterschool funding, I’ve said before, I fundamentally don’t believe this is an appropriate use of our budget,” Onofrio said. “I agree we need an afterschool program; I agree it should be as affordable as possible. I don’t agree the district should be funding it through out budget. We should continue looking for grants, utilize Title 1 funding, and do anything else that we can to help cover the costs. I’m confident that these sources will be able to significantly reduce the cost on families.”

Ultimately, as is the nature of all budget debates, it boils down to a matter of philosophy and majority.

“While having budget discussions, we’re always weighing and looking at priorities, goals and where we want to go as a district,” Burke said. “While I understand money doesn’t grow on trees, we have to decide where we want to allocate money—where our priorities are. And sometimes we do pull money from some things and put them into others, because priorities shift.”

The night was getting long, and President Russo was ready to bring the discussion to an end. Ultimately, he’s in a new position this year by being in the philosophical majority—and that was evident when he, Burke and board member Rob Dominguez signified they want the administration to incorporate the proposals in the budget.

“No matter how flat the pancake is, there’s always two sides,” Russo said at the end of the night. “In the past couple of years, we’ve gone below the tax cap, reduced people’s taxes, and I argued against it. We made some nice points going back and forth tonight, and I hope that we can find a way to support this.

“We could have met somewhere in the middle the past few years and started a reserve fund for capital improvements,” he continued. “I’m not mentioning this to create an argument, but I’m saying I think we did a good job here. In recent history, we’ve argued our points, but I think we’ve come together to support the district and I hope we do this time also.”

The Board of Education will meet again on Apr. 16 to adopt a final spending plan. Then, after a state-mandated public hearing on May 9, the proposal will be in the hands of the voters on May 21. The polls will also determine who will fill the two vacant seats on the school board. The positions are currently held by Russo and Burke.