SAYREVILLE – The Sayreville Board of Education has accepted almost $1 million in state aid for the 2017-18 school year amid debate among board members and administrators.
The extra aid was added to the 2018 New Jersey budget that was passed in the state Senate and Assembly and signed by Gov. Chris Christie following a three-day shutdown of state facilities during the first week of July.
On July 18, the Sayreville board’s final vote tally to approve the acceptance of $999,361 was 6-2. Board Vice President Phyllis Batko and board members Lucy Bloom, Beth DePinto, Anthony Esposito, Michael Macagnone and John Walsh voted “yes.” Board members Daniel Balka and Thomas Biesiada voted “no.” Board President Kevin Ciak was absent.
However, the board’s initial vote was 5-3, which would have prevented the $999,361 from being accepted. Although a majority of board members voted in the affirmative, at least six “yes” votes (a two-thirds majority) were needed to accept the state aid. Batko eventually changed her vote to “yes” so that the funding could be accepted.
The opposition to the motion to accept the funding was due to how the board’s agenda indicated it would be used. According to district administrators, the state aid appropriations listed on the agenda are preliminary and can be changed.
The 2017-18 budget that was adopted by the Board of Education in April totaled $91.6 million and included $21.3 million in state aid. The $999,361 boost increased state aid to $22.3 million.
According to district administrators, the board is in the process of deciding how the funding will be used. The additional state aid will not be used as tax relief and the owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $144,000 is expected to pay about $4,015 in school taxes during the next 12 months.
The preliminary appropriations of the $999,361 were $285,000 in supervisors of instruction salaries; $170,000 in instructional supplies; $138,000 in security salaries; $89,925 in central services salaries; $75,000 in guidance purchased professional/technical services; $60,000 in technology salaries; $50,000 in grade 1-5 instructional salaries; $44,500 in custodial department salaries; $30,000 in general administration technical services; $28,750 in instructional staff training salaries; $11,861 in security supplies; $9,927 in general administration salaries; and $6,398 in child study team department salaries.
Batko said she believed that the $999,361 should have been reviewed by the district’s finance committee before the board voted.
Superintendent of Schools Richard Labbe, however, was concerned that the district could lose the additional state aid if the board delayed accepting it, and found the funds to be necessary.
“We’re in a position now where we can receive a significant amount of money that can greatly assist this district, which is $19 million below adequacy,” Labbe said. “[Nearly] $1 million is going to make a huge difference for the students in this district. I don’t want to do anything to jeopardize our ability to utilize those funds.”
Labbe and Business Administrator Erin Hill emphasized that municipal officials had to be notified as soon as possible if the district received the additional state aid. As noted by Labbe, the board’s next scheduled meeting is in late August.
District administrators did not have an exact date for when the additional state aid had to be accepted by, but Aug. 1 was cited as a potential deadline.
“Appropriating the funds doesn’t necessarily lock us in to spending it on anything in particular,” Hill said. “It puts it in our budget. We could then transfer it after the fact as long as we don’t exceed any percentages that we’re required to maintain within the district.”
Also supporting the notion that the additional state aid should be reviewed by the finance committee was Biesiada, who is a member of that committee.
“Over 80 percent of our budget right now is for salaries and benefits,” Biesiada said. “I think the finance committee, along with the administration, should have an opportunity to look at this.”
“I’m not satisfied with the way it was structured here to divvy up the money,” Batko said. “I would have rather seen some of it go to non-recurring costs.”
“I wish the board had more input on the lines that were being used,” Balka said.
Labbe argued that the district administrators were only notified recently of the additional state aid and emphasized that the district was underfunded.
“We did not throw this on you,” Labbe said. “We are all confronted with this timely decision to make. We didn’t create these rules, as many times happens with the Department of Education [DOE]. I don’t like the timing of it either. But this district has been operating under adequacy to the tune of $18-$19 million for many years. Now we get [nearly] a million dollars. Instead of being upset with the DOE that we have very little time to make this decision, let’s just take the money.”
The board members who voted in favor of accepting the $999,361 requested those who voted against it to change their votes.
“We just got an extra [almost] $1 million that we weren’t expecting and we’re upset,” Macagnone said. “I’m trying to understand this. I trust my business administrator and my superintendent to put that money where it goes. The fact that it can be transferred and we can reallocate it, in discussion at a finance committee perhaps, seems reasonable to me. Now that we have the money, let’s put our arms around that money, let’s approve it tonight and then let’s sit as a committee or the full board to discuss how you want to allocate it.
“It’s [nearly] $1 million,” Macagnone continued. “We can certainly use this money. So why don’t we as adults approve taking this [near] $1 million and then if you want to have a finance committee or another meeting of the board to reallocate this money, I think that’s the wise thing to do.”
Ultimately, Batko chose to vote yes with the intention of having further discussion on the allocation of the additional state aid, and the money was accepted.
Contact Matthew Sockol at msockol@newspapermediagroup.com.
