Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Princeton board warns state funding changes could curb local levy dollars, urges contacts to legislators
Summary
Trustees said a proposed House funding plan that stops the Fair School Funding Plan phase‑in and caps cash balances at 30% could leave Princeton shortchanged and force county auditors to reduce millage; the board urged residents to contact legislators within two weeks.
The Princeton City School District Board of Education heard a lengthy briefing from the district treasurer on proposed state funding changes that trustees warned could sharply limit local levy proceeds and reverse recent voter decisions.
The treasurer told the board the House version of the state funding proposal omits years 5 and 6 of the Fair School Funding Plan and does not increase the base cost. “They are not moving forward with phase end of years 5 and 6 of the funding formula,” the treasurer said, adding the House plan would instead give districts roughly $20 per student next year and $30 the following year while setting the new guarantee at the fiscal‑2025 level.
Board members and the superintendent said the combined effect of a frozen guarantee plus a proposed cash‑balance cap would be destabilizing. The treasurer described House language that would prevent a district from carrying over cash in excess of 30% of expenditures and warned county auditors could be directed to reduce millage to meet that threshold. “They are going to cut your tax revenue in order to get you to 30%,” the treasurer said, noting this could mean a local levy that voters approved would later be reduced by an auditor’s adjustment.
Trustees framed the changes as a material change to local control and urged community members to contact legislators. One trustee said the key question is fairness to local voters: “If the will of the voter was to allow a levy, then that should not be reversed,” a board member said during discussion. The treasurer and other trustees asked the public to write legislators during the two weeks the legislature was in recess to press for full phase‑in and a base‑cost increase.
The board discussed practical concerns about county reporting workload and whether the cash‑balance provision is legally enforceable against a voter‑approved levy; the treasurer said legal analysis and a forecasting company’s updated spreadsheets were pending but warned that under some scenarios districts would report sharply different cash positions year‑to‑year.
Next steps: trustees asked staff to continue outreach to legislators, to update the board with refined forecasts, and to provide community talking points explaining how the proposals would affect the district’s levy cycle and budget planning.
