Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Additional Expenditure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board told county and state want district’s additional levy directed to benefits; district asked to reply by July 18
Summary
A county official told the board the State is seeking to direct previously approved additional local tax revenue into instructional salaries or health benefits rather than the facilities accounts the board originally designated; the board was told to notify the state by July 18 and may be able to reapply for a larger increment.
Board members reported a phone call from a Passaic County executive business official, John Ferrero, informing the district of a state direction regarding the district’s previously approved “additional expenditure” local levy. A board member said the county official asked the district to state whether it wanted the funds applied to instructional salaries or to health benefits; the board was asked to reply by July 18.
A board speaker said the district had originally placed the additional local revenue into facilities-related lines and intended to preserve those funds in maintenance reserve if unused. The county official warned the state may now require the money be devoted to instructional salaries or employee benefits instead. The speaker said the district’s projected unbudgeted health-benefits exposure could be about $600,000 and that the state’s decision could affect whether the district must reallocate local revenue now rather than later.
Board discussion noted the state health-benefits plan is undergoing a large increase of premiums in January (presenters cited a 32% figure), while the district’s current budget assumed lower premium increases (district staff cited budgeting at roughly 16%–20% depending on plan). Board members observed that revenue already collected by the borough to pay the district is flowing under the state program and that the district could, if allowed, apply for a larger additional levy; if so, the district would have to advertise a public hearing and return to voters.
Interim business administrator Pat (interim business administrator) confirmed the district had until July 18 to respond to the state, and that the district had filed questions with the state email address used in the additional-expenditure approval process. Board members said they would wait for a written response from the state and county; they also discussed internal options such as budget transfers during the fiscal year if revenue or liabilities change. No final board action was taken at the meeting; board members said they would report updates when the state replies.
