Pittsford's School Budget

In Pittsford and a few of the other suburbs of Rochester, we have some of the highest property taxes in the state compared to home values.  I’m guessing it’s because the quality (and consequent cost) of education is relatively high (and perhaps comparable with that of, say, Westchester County), but the average home value, which is the basis of the assessment, is much lower.  Since home values aren’t likely to skyrocket in our area anytime soon, the only way to control the tax burden is to control expenses.  Our school district has no incentive to do this, however.  (We could also encourage the building of more townhouse developments that appeal to empty-nesters...)  Certainly, having an exceptional school system should be a ‘draw’ for employers and employees with families (and probably it once was). Sadly, our area doesn’t reap the rewards of spending all this money educating our children – most of them seem to leave to pursue careers elsewhere, taking their taxable income with them.

Instead of just complaining about the taxes and vainly voting ‘no’ on budgets (because most of the people I know who are opposed to the increases don’t bother to vote), I decided to learn more about the process of developing the budget, so I attended one of the Pittsford School District’s budget work sessions.  What I learned did not give me hope that our school district has any intention of managing costs.  Michael Pero, Superintendent of Schools, opened the meeting and explained that a goal of the Board of Education is “to be more communicative” and that starts with “what makes Pittsford special, including what are our values.”  He explained the complications of the budget process, as they must wait for input from other agencies, and complained, of course, about the property tax cap.

Darrin Kenney, Assistant Superintendent for Business, then gave a PowerPoint presentation with lots of graphs showing the steady increase in costs (mostly related to salaries and benefits, which comprise roughly 80% of the budget) and decreasing revenues.  No surprise.  He admitted that explaining the tax levy limit formula was his “least favorite part,” and that the district is in disagreement with the state about whether or not the costs related to the new buses, which were approved in a separate vote from the regular budget last year, should be counted in that limit.  This reminded me a bit of Maggie Brooks’ trick of stripping out the cost of snow-plowing from the Monroe County budget, so that the budget could remain flat (even though taxpayers end up paying more, because of the extra “fee”).  It also made me wonder if the District’s recent accounting maneuver to move textbooks from “supplies” to “equipment” is the first step to a separate vote for funding of textbooks.  And what mean person would vote against textbooks?

Mr. Kenney’s graphs all displayed a steady upward march of salaries, both historically and in future projections (through 2026, in fact).  It made me wonder what the corresponding numbers of students, teachers, and administrative staff were that underlie those figures, since they were not to be found in the presentation.  Are costs rising because we have more students and so need more teachers?  Or are they rising because we are paying staff more, even though student population is static or declining?  And how does this square with Mr. Kenney’s complaint that the wealth factor (Pittsford residents’ wealth compared to the State’s average) has been declining over the past 5 years? 

When Mr. Pero asked the Board how they felt about living within this year’s tax cap, it appeared that they mostly supported it.  One outspoken member, however, shared her bias towards exceeding that cap in future years, and her belief that the Board should begin preparing (propagandizing?) the public now for this need, and the super-majority* vote it will require.  To her, it is a fait accompli that costs must continue to rise and outpace the revenue restrictions. 

At one point, Mr. Pero mentioned that one of their benchmark schools is Scarsdale.  Interesting, since according to Money Magazine, in 2011, Scarsdale’s median home price was $1,200,000 and their median family income was $250,000 - roughly 3-4 times comparable figures for Pittsford. Scarsdale competes with neighboring towns in Westchester, as well as Connecticut and New Jersey, for residents who work in high paying jobs in the tri-state area.  While it’s laudable that in Pittsford we wish to educate our children to the same standards as other richer communities, it might be impractical given the economics of our region.

I sent Mr. Kenney an email with questions about the student and teacher populations, but received no response.  Perhaps I shouldn’t have also asked if any consideration was being given to merging with neighboring school districts in order to eliminate redundant overhead costs...

*If a district wishes to exceed the property tax cap, it then needs 60% approval, rather than a simple majority.  To complicate matters, if the initial vote fails, the district must hold a second vote (on the same or a reduced budget), and if the second vote fails, then there can be NO increase.  Classic game theory.