The city's Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, says that the difference for the average taxpayer between the city's budget as it stands now and increasing it by the Council's Finance Committee's recommendation of $2.8 million for the city's students is $72. That translates into a $1.38 a week for the average taxpayer.
The Finance Committee's chair, Carvin Hilliard, has acknowledged that the proposed increase of 3.8% is not sufficient for the Board of Education to maintain its present level of programming. He acknowledges that cuts would have to be made. Some have argued that the Board should cut administrators. If you have any knowledge about schools and how they get better and you look at our level of administrative staffing, you know cutting administrators does not make sense. Besides, we would have to cut half the administrative staff across schools and central office to manage a reduction of this magnitude. My predecessors, as well as PTO members, have argued for curriculum specialists in order to maintain the quality of our educational program. How can it make sense to go back to the days when there was little monitoring of or focus on instruction and curriculum? Other than cutting administrators, no one on the Council or the Board of Estimate has made suggestions about where reductions could be made.
The Board of Education would be left with the challenge of doing that. We've already said there would be program cuts. Why is this so hard to understand or to believe? The money is going to have to come from someplace.
We don't have to tear this city apart over the school budget and we don't have to raise the budget by the full $2.8 million and the additional $72 from the taxpayers. Here's another idea for consideration but the Council and the Finance Director would have to publicly agree to do it:
1. Reduce the city's contingency line of $4 million that's dedicated to the non-school budget (45% of the total) by $1 million and shift that $1 million over to the school budget. This would have no impact on increasing the city's budget or raising taxes and still gives the city a contingency to cover contractual increases and shortfalls in estimates.
2. Increase the cap by $1.8 million and adjust the revenue side:
A. The conveyance tax alone could probably safely be increased by $500,000. An increase of this revenue by $500,000 offsets the need to increase taxes for the full $1.8 million.
B. There is probably general agreement that the State will increase funds for education by some amount. Norwalk's increase, in most people's judgment, will be at least $200,000. An increase of this revenue by $200,000 offsets the need to increase taxes for the full $1.8 million.
The net impact of these steps is to raise $1.7 million of the needed $2.8 million without impacting taxes at all. We will only need to raise $1.1 million by an increase in taxes. If a $2.8M increase requires $72, then a $1.1 million increase will require about $30 for the average taxpayer. That's an increase for the average taxpayer of a little less than sixty cents a week. I think most folks would agree that sixty cents a week to maintain the current level of our educational program for our kids is money they could find. Eliminating the anger and disappointment that will surely occur is worth the price alone.
We will continue to try to find a solution to this problem. We urge the community to join with us in persuading the Council to find one as well.
Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
