Seaside Park: Don't Blame Us on Budget Cuts
School, municipal officials defend their part in the defeated Central Regional spending plan
Photos
Seaside Park Borough Administrator Robert Martucci is used to what he calls "the dog and pony show" when all five towns of the Central Regional school district get together to hash out the defeated budget.
So it didn't bother him that he was probably the most unpopular person at the recent budget hearings.
"The only thing that really matters is when you get to that back room," Martucci said.
Martucci was the only public face for Seaside Park at the meetings. The other officials, including Councilman Michael Tierney, attended only the closed session portions of the meetings.
Some officials from the other four sending towns of the Central Regional school district bashed Seaside Park for not attending the public portions. But Seaside Park officials had their reasons, both Martucci and Tierney said.
Martucci said he and members of the council's finance committee received a 1.5-page budget summary the day before the first joint budget meeting. That was not enough time to review the defeated budget, he said.
Members of the other four towns were throwing numbers around at the first meeting, with little detail about what should be cut, Martucci said.
So he suggested a $3 million cut and said the borough needed more time to review the budget.
"We went into the meeting and told them exactly what we had," Tierney said. "We just got the budget. We hadn't been able to review it."
Martucci said he later found a number of areas that could be cut, including legal fees, Board of Education membership dues and fees, supplies and materials, school maintenance salaries, central services materials and supplies, guidance, transportation and several other items that could be cut without affecting education.
"We didn't cut one iota of education," Martucci said. "There are accounts money is hidden in and everybody knows it."
Eventually all the governing bodies of all five sending towns — Seaside Park, Berkeley Township, Ocean Gate, Island Heights and Seaside Heights — agreed to an $815,239 cut in the budget.
Central Regional Schools Superintendent Triantafillos "Tom" Parlapanides said what will be cut will be announced at the next regular Board of Education meeting.
Both Martucci and Tierney questioned the wisdom of having two separate school districts in Berkeley Township — the Berkeley Township School District and the Central Regional School district.
"A single town with two separate school systems, which is almost as ludicrous as it gets, and they are worried about nine students," Martucci said. "They themselves are the least effective district I can think of."
"I shake my head when I hear that," Tierney said. "They can't begin to entertain putting them (two school districts) together."
Martucci referred to the nine Seaside Park students who currently attend Toms River Regional schools free of charge. That practice will end in September, when parents who want their children to go to Toms River will have to pay tuition costs.
The cost to send a Seaside Park middle or high school student to the Central Regional district can vary between $107,000 to $120,000, depending upon the number of students going at any given year, Martucci said.
And that's the reason the other Central Regional towns want to keep Seaside Park in the district, he said.
"I got news for you," Martucci said. "It was never about the kids. It was always about getting $100,000 per student. It was all about the money."
Seaside Park closed the Seaside Park Elementary School last year. The borough as a sending agreement for K-6 students with the Toms River Regional school district. Students in grades 7-12 go to Central Regional.
It makes financial and educational sense to have Seaside Park students go to a single K-12 district, Martucci said.
He has approached Central Regional officials many times about a long-term phaseout of Seaside Park students from the Central Regional school district, Martucci said.
"As we produce less and less students, they will get less and less students from us," he said. "We won't hit you with a $4 million hole. It would be a long-term phaseout. It has to be good for you and for us. The district wasn't created in a day."
Parlapanides said the only way a withdrawal could work is if it was "tax-neutral" for the other four sending towns.
"Everything needs to be included and upfront," he said. "The key to this is it has to be transparent and tax-neutral. We have a responsibility to all five sending towns."
"If they have a plan with a 10-year withdrawal, send it to the five councils," Parlapanides added. "It's got to be something that isn't going to impact the other towns financially."
Parlapanides did agree that the number of Seaside Park students will probably drop in the future, even if the borough stays with Central Regional.
"No young couple is going to try and buy a $500,000 starter home in Seaside Park," Parlapanides said.
The average home in Seaside Park is assessed at $558,000. The average home in Berkeley Township is assessed at $204,000. Martucci also questioned why Berkeley went 19 years without a revaluation.
Representatives from some of the other sending towns said at the budget meetings that Seaside Park was unable to separate its opposition to the current state statute that calls for school districts to be funded through property tax assessments.
The budget situation is complicated by the ongoing litigation between the two school districts and the Township Council over just where Seaside Park students should attend school.
"It's a mess," Parlapanides said. "It's a big mess. The only ones that really make out are the lawyers."
People out there think that Seaside Park doesn't want Central Regional to exist," he said. "It has to do with what our people have to pay."
skizma
3:11 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
I first hope they are paying toms river to send their children to that district. It's against state mandates about paying for out of district students. If that is the case, they don't have to pay for their students to go to TR, then that constitutes a premiss that other districts can do the same thing. That would be called school CHOICE. The other problem is that this town is voting no on a budget instead of taking their NO to trenton. The whole thing is atrocious and wrong. Period. The state has an obligation to step in and rebalance this.
Jose Deer
3:28 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Why doesnt Seaside Heights have these same issues ?
Jose Deer
3:35 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
bottom line, to anyone who is an honest person
1. Too much duplicate waste in Berkeley/Central Regional
2. the reassements were unfair for the island and falls on the mayors head
3. schools should NOT be funded by property taxes
4. no one would be OK paying $100,000 per student in their town
5. just because you own a house NEAR (not on) the water doesnt mean you are rich (and shouldnt matter if you are)
6. sending kids 45 mins past a bunch of TR schools is not "for the kids"
7. the NJEA and Superintendants control of taxpayers is ending, they better get used to it QUICKLY
Robert Everett
3:41 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
FIRST- PERSONAL OPINIONS HERE - not speaking for anyone or any group!
What they fail to tell you here is that they feel they should get a 'special' consideration and not have to pay ANY district based on thier property values - like everyone else in NJ. Yes, I got a problem with that, and if you dont live in SSP, including TR, then you should too! Now, you may not agree with our current system of funding our schools, primarily based on property values. I won't argue with you when we talk about the gross costs of funding the Abbot districts. When we cry about only getting 11% in state aid, I would have to fess up and say there is a reason and that may be more fair than we like to admit. But those are topics for another discussion. And yes, the legisalture 'changed' the rules in 1976 - which may not seem 'fair' from the SSP point of view. But maybe, just maybe did you ever think that the old formula was not fair & that is why it was changed?
Now I dont pretend to be a tax expert, but our tax system in this country is not a 'flat tax'. In general, the 'wealthier' you are the more you pay. Most people, if being honest, would say a varying scale is more fair, based on the idea that $10 to someone that only has $100 is much more vital than $100 to someone that has $1000. MORE...
Robert Everett
3:55 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
It comes down to how you 'measure wealth'. In our tax system it varies - sometimes it's how much you make (income) how much you spend (sales tax) or the value of waht you won (property). And it varies for a reason - despite what folks think from their personal ( narrow) point of view - it is to spread the burden as fairly as possible. Now, whether it works or not is debateable.
Here is the rub: we long ago recognized the need to fund public education in our country. Anyone that thinks it is not absolutely vital to our economic status and WEALTH as coutnry is sorely mistaken. Furthermore it si in EVEYRONES best interest, even if you dont have children, to keep our education system the very very best it can be.
And to do that we must ALL contribute to the system. This argument is really about who should pay how much - SSP feels they should be able to take advantage of their unique situation and ONLY contribute for their relatively few students. Fortunately, our legislature was wise enough to understand that it was vital that everyone contributed based on thier ability to pay - and they decided that the fairest way was to base it on property values. Like it or not, property value is a relative measurement of wealth. Now, is it perfect? No, not at all - and in this situation where some values have rapidly increased in realtion to others, it can put a difficult burden on some folks. MORE
Robert Everett
4:22 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
cont 3. Now, I do feel bad for those folks - to a degree. But the fact is they also made what turned out to be a great investment, and will profit handsomely when they sell. In short, they are property 'rich', but 'cash' poor. I know - I get it.
Now if you feel that the proeprty tax system is not fair for funding or schools - please tell me the system we should use. But from my point of view, I have not yet heard of any plan that would be more fair OVERALL.
That brings us back to the beginning - should SSP NOT have to pay based on thier property values. I say no, so long as the rest of us have to. And that does not matter whether the go to CR, TR or where ever - their home values are what they are - and until the entire system changes they should (and will) pay based on them. And so far, at every level, the courts have agreed.
And you might want to look at what you are wishing for, you just might get get it. Consider this scenario. SSP some how gets a court to agree that they are 'special', can leave CR & pay per student. They go to TR & pay per student - for a little while -- until the folks in the Ortley & other high property value areas go nuts, lawyer up and put an end to it. Then you join the TR k-12 and get taxed like all the other towns in their district - straight up based on property values with NO CONSIDERATION for the number of students - like you have not with CR. MORE
Robert Everett
4:39 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
(The funding formula with CR takes into account the number of students, the tr regional is purely based on equalized property values, that is why counting the '9' matters).
You might want to ask your leaders to get out the calculators and do some math. Because if you fail to get the 'special' consideration you will just go from paying alot to CR to paying even more to TR.
So yes it is about the money. The analogy I can best use is ALASKA. Many years ago the US purchased ALASKA from Russia. they did not want it, we took it. ( TR dumped SSP, SH & IH, CR took them) Then they discovered Oil & Gold in ALASKA. (Property values went crazy on the beach) Now ALASKA is worth a lot of money. What would we do if Russia now decided to demand it back? (We would send the air craft carriers and start to build bomb shelters) CR called a lawyer.
TR is not being 'nice guys'. They saw the value of the beach communities and know that eventually they would collect based on the property values - and effectively be able to subsidize their tax payers.
Watch what you wish for, you just might get it.
I dont see it happening, but you never know with politics.
Personally, I think we would be better looking for ways to control all of our taxes, and there are ways to do it.
John Anderson
4:21 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Thank you Mr. Martucci for standing up for the taxpayers in all the townships. Unlike our elected officials in Berkeley.
Robert Martucci
5:29 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Mr. Everertt's analogy (purchase of Alaska) only makes sense if you believe you can change the price of Alaska 20 years after the original contract for purchase was signed by the United States.(as what happened to Seaside Park in 1976 , after voting to join Central Regional as a Per pupil cost) Secondly never in the history of New Jersey education has a sending/receiviving district constituent ever been forced to become part of a regional district. Mr. Everett's belief that Toms River is expecting to absorb Seaside Park into their regional system is nothing more than trying to explain what has happened to Seaside Park attending Central Regional , and appling it to Toms River. This will never happen.
Robert Everett
5:49 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
The purchase price did not change, just the value of it did.
So you feel you will be able to cut a special, only for SSP, deal on how you support public schools in NJ? And TR are just a bunch of nice guys willing to 'help you out', right?
Maybe there is a better system - have not heard of one yet - but I'm willing to listen. But I can tell you if you get a better deal, I'm going to want one too!
We shall see ...
joey tortello
5:36 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT SEASISE HEIGHTS / SEASIDE BEACH ARE BEING RUNNED POLITICALLY BY THE MOB.MATBE CHRIS CHRISTE CAN LOOK INTO THIS.????
Jose Deer
5:40 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Everett, property taxes are THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAXES in the world and there is NOTHING 'fair' about a regressive tax based on ownership and not consumption and/or ability to continue to pay plus paying for corruption and waste is a whole other story that needs to be REVOLTED against.....NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOUSE !
Robert Everett
5:52 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Ok, so what is your solution on how to fund our schools?
Jose Deer
7:08 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
SIMPLE ! a dedicated increase in sales and/or income tax PLUS a BIG DECREASE in the cost of schools (decrease in admin, teachers salaries , pay for their health insurance and of course NO pensions (which will not be there for them anyway) by way of cost per student thru fixed amount per head or voucher
PLUS only 21 county superintendants are necessary and ALOT less school districts
Seaside River
10:50 pm on Friday, June 3, 2011
Can someone please answer this for me because this is the way we see it. Does this mean SSP taxpayers will be paying for 2 school districts and a whole lot of endless attorney fees?
skizma
3:59 pm on Saturday, June 4, 2011
ssp will pay the 10,000 tuition as well as their regular full property taxes to central reg. If the do somehow get out of Central, then they'd pay TR district's regional school taxes.
June
8:53 am on Saturday, June 4, 2011
Thank you Robert for taking the time to try to enlighten some of us but again I fear there are some really dense people that are clueless. I agree fully, Becareful what you wish for, not always to your liking. The system as it is may not be fair,but its what we have to work with until some one can come up with a workable plan to resolve some of this mess. Sure pray its soon
Missyfromcentral
10:11 am on Saturday, June 4, 2011
A referendum on a dedicated increase in the sales tax, specifically for property tax relief was voted down by the residents of NJ in 2008. If passed, it would've been applied to costs of benefits and pensions. An income tax increase to cover said costs? NJ is overtaxed enough (quote Gov Christie). No pensions? Constitutionally mandated.We also have the Non-Forfieiture Clause, a statute passed when Governor Whitman raided the $20 billion to speculate in the stock market and was forced to put the money back by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Non-Forfeiture Clause states pensions must be paid in full and on time. A 401k plan? 401k, is the property of the employee. WE would be responsible to determine where and how our money allocated. Removing the State from any "right" it has to it. To the displeasure of many politicians. The decrease in teachers and school districts will only increase class size. We are averaging, 26 per class right now. With special ed mandates, the issue would then become a matter of legality. I know these matters are concerns to those who have children and not to those who moved passed the stage in their lives. If I was SSP I would be concerned. The council plans on"finding a way" to pay for the 9 children. "Foundation" Who funds it? Either way, it's still from the tax payer. As a resident of TR, I and many others, will make sure that SSP will be paying tuition. We want your rateables and the last three years paid retroactively.
Gretta
10:43 am on Saturday, June 4, 2011
. . . . With special ed mandates, the issue would then become a matter of legality. I know these matters are concerns to those who have children and not to those who moved passed the stage in their lives. If I was SSP I would be concerned. The council plans on"finding a way" to pay for the 9 children. "Foundation" Who funds it? Either way, it's still from the tax payer. As a resident of TR, I and many others, will make sure that SSP will be paying tuition. We want your rateables and the last three years paid retroactively. . . .
Well said Missy
skizma
3:53 pm on Saturday, June 4, 2011
OK Jose....you are really off your rocker. Sales tax????? You MUST be rich. Sales tax KILLs and sucks dry the lower and middle income tax brackets. Sales tax. That's your solution? Income tax is the only, only other way to fund schools. But that will never be fair either. Politicians will never devise a fair income tax with the wealthy paying their share. Those such as yourself, do not want to contribute your fair share. I wholeheartedly agree that property tax is a horrible way to fund schools. A FAIR income tax is the true solution. But, the wealthy won't agree. Especially SSP. It is very true. SSP will have to pay their share and it is true then that it would be more if they entered TR. But, if as one poster claims, it's the drive they don't like, then the price would be fine for a shorter drive. Our school funding system is old and incorrect. Central getting 11% in aid is ridiculous. Lots of things with this are just inequitable. It needs to be reexamined.
Jose Deer
5:03 pm on Saturday, June 4, 2011
why does a sales tax kill the lower/middle class ???.....its a consumption tax !......i would think the rich you hate or are jealous of , would spend MORE money than the lower class on higher ticket items and pay MORE sales tax......but why is always class warfare with you !......the property tax is REGRESSIVE and hurts the lower/middle class than a consumption tax that you have a choice how/when to spend your money , instead of having a gun to you head to pay the government leeches with a threat of LOSING your house if you do not or cannot pay the yearly increases !
this is not a class problem, this is a bloated government problem ....the reason they will not switch to a sales tax is the people would have more control on what they want to allowed to be taxed on and thus government can not count on a set amount of billions in taxes
skizma
7:23 am on Sunday, June 5, 2011
Jose, you must be kidding. OK, so you're telling me it's not class warfare? SSP is making it out that way. All you hear about is how much per child it costs to send their children to school. Big deal. Every district is in the same situation. the more you make the more you pay....right? Well, you evidentally don't like that. You are no suggesting a SALES tax. That along with property tax are the worst ways to collect tax. Those taxes do NOT take into consideration ones' ability to pay. And who are complaining?????those most able to pay. The oceanfront owners will always pay a lot. If you don't like it, get more children in your town. It'll bring down the price per child. It doesn't matter how many children YOUR individual district sends. Not at all. It's your home value that sets the contribution, on the assumption that if you have that valuable a home, you make a correspondingly high enough income to pay for it. And, going to TR does not change the fact that you will still, STILL be paying for 9 children to go and per pupil will STILL be around 100,000 grand per child. Every town could do that. But that's not how it's calculated. You DON"T pay 100,000 per child. That's a totally misleading and incorrect calculation. You just don't want to pay for your children to go to school. Then put your money where your mouth is. if it's 100,000 per child, set up your own school. Let us know how you make out.
skizma
7:28 am on Sunday, June 5, 2011
so, it all comes down to the per pupil price you are paying in your small town for school tax. Period. Again, who's complaining? Gees, those that have it the most to pay somehow can't bear to pay their fair share. It comes across that the rich....class warfare....are spoiled and selfish. Sorry......just an observation. And, SSP contributes to ALL the children in their district. You don't pay just for the one's you send. The funding is not based on that, how many children are in your district. That is a false calculation. You pay the same per student in the district that everyone else has to pay. You pay more because you have higher property value and therefore, corresponding higher income. Period. I didn't make this system. But again, sales tax is NOT the answer. Only a wealthy person would like that. Do I really have to explain how that tax doesn't work? good grief....