• Yesterday the Senate held a press conference on the State Budget. At the briefing the Senate & Governor strongly stated that education is now a high FY06 priority.

FYI - Abbott Districts, by DOE approved regulation & negotiation, require an additional 140M in the Appropriations Act FY06 [this excludes Patterson, which has yet to settle wit the state for FY06]. The additional funds involved here are very likely to be addressed in the budget. Abbott legislators are on record with the Governor's office that they support a corresponding amount of aid should be allotted to the 580+ Regular Operating Districts [i.e.,Non Abbott] districts as well.

• It is past time that the legislature and the Governor acknowledge the negative impact of not implementing its own school funding law is having on 580+ operating districts across the board. The state recognition of these needs will be realized in seeing that these districts receive at least a corresponding amount that the 31 Abbott districts will receive.

The link between property tax increases and legislated and Supreme Court underscored mandate for a 'Thorough and Efficient' education has never been clearer. How can the legislature ask so many communities across the state to pick up the state's obligation to their schools via local property tax increases? The call for property tax rebates would certainly lessen if the state would pick up its legislated share of education program costs.

• How can additional funding be used by districts in FY06, given the restrictions of S1701?

S1701 regulations provide for aid to be added to FY06 school budgets directly. Otherwise new legislation S2558/A4541that just passed through Assembly and Senate Budgets committees this week allotting $19.M to 5 quasi-Abbott districts would be unworkable, since the increase would bring their surpluses above 2%. Additional funds appropriated could be used for the stated purpose of that aid, e.g., special education extraordinary aid and current enrollments for special education students could be increased and applied for program use in those FY06 aid categories. 

• Section 15 School Construction Grant Money needs replenishing.

The state has approximately 30 districts 'hung up' awaiting notice on how to proceed with their community-planned school facilities referenda anticipated for September. Districts do not know yet - and apparently may not be notified for another couple of weeks - how to structure their referenda questions. Will the state restrict districts to a new process where only debt service funding may be allowed? How much of the project costs would that debt service cover? Can a community accept the change from its board of education's stated intentions - and bond capacity - from an up front grant to an annual debt service allowance that spreads over the lifetime of a loan? The lead on how to handle this has to come from the highest levels of the executive branch in the Governor's office and the Treasury. So far no word from those offices, meanwhile districts head into the summer with little recourse or direction.

• Debt Service

This budget line will need to be increased because if Section 15 grant money is not replenished in the near future. Debt service may be an interim provided for those districts that need to move ahead on facilities work. There is no provision for increase debt service currently included in the FY06 State Budget. What does that imply?