GUILDERLAND — Tuesday evening, school leaders here urged advocacy for changes in state funding — most notably, eliminating the use of the Consumer Price Index to cap the tax levy.

“It’s ironic, after four or five years, we’re now advocating for a 2-percent cap,” said Superintendent Marie Wiles.

As The Enterprise reported two months ago (“Schools face flat tax dough,” and “Editorial: Schools must be funded fairly,” Nov. 12, 2015), public schools across New York are facing the 2016-17 budget year without the ability to raise taxes unless they can get a supermajority of voters to approve a hike.

The current state law says that increases in the tax levy is limited to 2 percent or the preceding year’s consumer price index, whichever is less, unless schools can get 60 percent or more to approve a hike.

The Consumer Price Index for 2015 is expected to be at or near zero for the 2016-17 budget calculation.

If Guilderland’s levy were allowed to increase by 2 percent next year, the district could take in $70.8 million in taxes, an increase of over $2 million from the current year, notes Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders. This year’s budget is $93.7 million.

As it is, with the close-to-zero CPI, Guilderland can levy only $951, 576 next year, which is $1.25 million less than had the increase been set at 2 percent, Sanders pointed out.

“The first flaw,” Sanders said, “is CPI is based on consumer-type expenses, not typical school expenses.”

He said that the Consumer Price Index is “based on a market basket of goods…[which] covers about 200 products.” He listed categories like recreation, food and beverages, housing, and apparel that have “little correlation with school districts” along with other categories — transportation, medical care, and education and communication — that somewhat correlate.

Also, Sanders went on, “We’re forced again to use a formula based on data from the past…CPI is expected to trend higher next year so we’ll have rising prices.”

He called the zero allowable growth “punitive” as “resources will need to be taken away from students.”

Guilderland expects about $800,000 in new costs next year, above the increases to existing budgeted costs, Sanders said. “So it puts us in a bit of a predicament,” he concluded.

Board member Barbara Fraterrigo referenced built-in salary increases — salaries and benefits make up the lion’s share of school budgets — and asked, “What is the rollover?”

“The rollover is luckily about zero,” Wiles replied. “In theory, we could be OK.”

But she went on, “Our conversation tonight isn’t just about this year.” She also said the current calculation includes an additional $1.9 million in state aid to Guilderland being restored.

Four options

Wiles noted that neither the governor nor the state legislature has come up with recommendations for aid figures and went over “four broad options” to solve budget problems.

The first is to further reduce existing programs and services. After five years of major cuts, Guilderland has just begun to recover, Wiles said, from “very painful conversations” that resulted in cutting over 200 staff members.

“This is not a good option,” she concluded.

The second option is to deny the $800,000 in increases requested by program leaders thereby falling short in meeting mandates and student needs, she said.

The third option is to use more of the district’s fund balance, or rainy-day account, to cover added expenses, something, she noted, that school board members had not supported. “We spent the last two years on the comptroller’s list of being susceptible to fiscal risk,” said Wiles, stating, “We’re just about to come to more solid ground.

The fourth and final option is to challenge the tax levy threshold, which would require 60-percent voter approval, and would forfeit tax rebates for property owners in the district.

Guilderland has never tried this and, Wiles noted, statewide, many districts that have gone over the levy limit faced defeat at the polls. If a budget is ultimately defeated, the state allows no levy increase.

“We have to be realistic,” said Wiles. “The tax cap is popular…This is a very risky kind of thing to do.”

In addition to recommending a constant 2-percent levy increase limit, Wiles also urged advocacy for not requiring a public vote for budgets under the allowable tax levy growth factor. “Voter turnout is plummeting,” she said, noting schools alone must have their budgets approved by direct public vote rather than through elected representatives. Voters also decide on budgets for public libraries.

For budgets over the allowable levy limit, Wiles recommended requiring a simple majority, of 50 percent rather than a supermajority of 60 percent.

Finally, she urged an increase in state funding. “Everyone agrees that is a noble cause,” said Wiles, “but where does that money come from?”