I'd like to call this meeting of the Board of Education to order. Mr. Schimp, can you please call the roll? Dr. Braddock here. Mr. Fain. Here, Miss Cummings. Here, Dr. Dryson. Here. Mr. Greenbaum. Here. Ms. Manzano. Here. Ms. Palmer? Here. Ms. Stern? Here. Ms. Winters. Sure. Thank you. Public notice of this meeting pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act has been given by the Board Secretary on March 11, 2026 in the following matter.
Post a notice on the school bulletin board at the administration building, posted on the board's official website, transmitted to the clerk of Cherry Hill Township. Please be advised, this meeting is being recorded and live streamed. All rise, and please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag. The United States of America. and see the republic for which it stands.
Thank you all very much for joining me for our budget discussion. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Schimp to get us started. Okay, thank you. Can we turn sharing on too, Kelly?
Kevin, I just need to be able to share. Yeah. There we go. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So this evening, thank you again, all of you for coming out on a. Thursday, a little atypical for this special meeting. So tonight's really more of a discussion. We won't be taking any, or won't be asking for you to take any formal action on the budget. That's actually next Tuesday. But I wanted to and thought it was important to lay out the current financial situation.
Uh, in which we find ourselves. Um, as we move into tentative budget adoption on Monday, and. Really, this is… this is going to be a reflection of, um… months of work that we've put in. to this. I mean, this is a process, as you know, that begins usually in October and doesn't fully conclude until the end of April, when the final adoption is made. But this will just give us a little status as to where we currently currently sit.
So just to talk about the process again, these are things you've heard me talk about again at board meetings since probably October-ish, and what? What's the problem? Can you blow the screen up? Yeah.
Well, you can hear me right? So… So one of the things I did the other evening, as I, you know, as we were preparing for this, or as we roll into this, is I went back and I watched some of these budget meetings or tentative budget meetings, uh, last year, last March. And a lot of the things you're going to hear me talking about this evening were talked about last March, and I listened to all of your comments, and I think all of you are aware.
Um, of the financial situation the district was in and was headed toward a lot of tough decisions I know had to be made even for this current year. And unfortunately, we're in a situation where we're going to have to continue making. Um, very difficult and consequential decisions just based on the financial reality of where we sit. So… something I've utilized over the years, and that I'm a huge proponent of, and I find great value in is. We utilize or we utilized a 0-based budgeting approach.
Uh, this year at Cherry Hill. This is something that most of the administrators at the building level or department level were not familiar with or may have not had history with. Again, I have I applaud them for their efforts. They followed all the instructions that I laid out and really put a lot of time and effort. and to really analyzing, and this is the point of the zero base, is to, instead of. just looking at your current year expenditures and simply rolling over those pots of money, or adding a couple percent each year.
to their budgets and building it that way. I had them build from from the from a 0 base, meaning they're building it from the ground up. And that's forces them to to carefully review. programs. Find it, you know, potential efficiencies that could be made or things that we're doing or they're doing at the building levels or initiatives. Are they working? Are they, you know, getting us the most bang for the buck? And this is an opportunity. for what I've told them is you build your budget based on what you believe your needs are.
to be successful, meaning you meet your building goals, you meet your district level goals or strategic goals, all of that. Tell me what what that looks like. and in the end, obviously, you know, a pot of money comes out. So really, it's it's an exercise, because school budgets. are crafted, you know, almost backwards, in that. We don't know what our final revenue numbers are necessarily until the state releases our aid figures, and that typically happens at the end of February. This year was postponed.
Because we have a new governor in place, and if you think about it at the state level, I mean, she was elected in November, and just presented a, what, $60 billion state budget in, uh, in early March, so… Um, that in and of itself was a monumental effort, but we also are under a very tight timeline. So even though the planning process and the building of the budget begins in October. We don't really know where we sit as far as potential deficit that we may have until we get those eight figures.
So we got those on the 12th. Um, so last week. So we've had to make, um, you know, the good news is, is our projections were spot on. We were anticipating a 3%. decrease to the state aid, because as you know, according to the formula, uh, this year we were basically 11 million dollars over funded, you know, according to the to the funding formula and some of the scenarios we had built the more devastating ones were. what would happen, or what would this look like here at Cherry Hill if the state comes and didn't have a 3% cap on those reductions? And they came and they took that 11 million on top of all of the other.
issues that we're experiencing from a financial standpoint that I'll get into. good news is that catastrophic scenario didn't come to light. But we are, in fact, still dealing. with some very serious financial situations. So from that zero base, again, um… and you probably read, you know, within some of the documents I provide to the board in prep for this. We really did a thorough review. And again, I applaud all at the school level and department level thorough review of every line item. And here in Cherry Hill there's over 3,000 budgetary line items.
Um, that make up our school budget. And we really took a very hard look. Um, at everything, right? So everything from supply budgets to staffing to operational type investments, making sure or attempting to make sure that the investments that they're asking for are aligned, obviously, with our goals and district priorities. I think it's important that their requests. reflect, you know, operational, I'll say operational necessity versus.
what they've just done historically, right? So they… it's more than just numbers, right? I mean, we're really looking at, or they were asked, tasked. with, um… kind of finding and re-looking at everything, right? And instead of just, well, we've always done it this way, well, let's see, maybe if we do it a different way, we can get better results, or we can find more efficiencies. So they took it very seriously, and at the end, obviously. Um, through all of that, and once we were able to finalize our revenue projections, we realized we had a substantial structural deficit.
Uh, within the budget. And those deficits. Uh, that we calculated were based on several different scenarios, based on what we do with the tax levy, okay? And the tax levy is an important piece. Um, of our budget, because it funds about 90% of it. And it's the only revenue source that we have the ability to manipulate. Okay. Um, so several different scenarios were built. based on different tax levy scenarios. And by adjusting those tax levy scenarios, they produce different types of deficits so we went anywhere from a best case scenario of around a 14 and a half million dollars structural deficit all the way up to about a $25 million.
deficit, and I'll get into the reasons for that. As we move forward here. So I'm going to talk to you a little bit. We have issues on both sides of the budget. We have issues from a revenue revenue standpoint, as well as an expenditure standpoint. So. One of the most prominent expenditure-type issues that we're dealing with this year is the rising employee health benefit costs. You know, we… through negotiation with our carriers. We were able to get some of their initial estimates down at the beginning of the process. We were quoted a medical or an increase on our medical premium of around 27%.
prescription was around 33%. Um, put those numbers together, and that's over $12 million in increased costs just on our health benefit program. We were able to, through our broker, successfully negotiate a renewal with our medical carrier down to 19.9%, which is about a $7 million increase. and a 27% increase on our prescription plan, which was another $3 million. So we're still looking at roughly a $10 million increase to our employee health benefit line.
That's something that's completely out of our control. So the increases that were being quoted are based on our claims history, right? And what loss ratio that creates. So what our providers look at is. claims that they're paying out versus the premiums that we're paying to them in. And unfortunately at the medical level we've seen this for the last two years, we're running at a pretty high level. So on the medical side, our loss ratio for medical is about 92%, meaning.
for every dollar we pay them, they're paying out 92, or, yeah, uh, 92 cents in… in premium. On the prescription side, or in claim… on the prescription side, we're running at roughly 130%, so every dollar we're paying in premium to better card services, they're paying out $1.30. Um, so that's what's really driving, you know, that increase. It's claims, and then just the inflation on the medical services themselves. And they're using numbers of like 12%. for medical inflation, which is… has to be one of the more significant inflationary.
categories as far as medical vision and dental are flat, which was great. And again, through those negotiations which were critical. Um, we were able to bring those costs down by another $2.3 million. Unfortunately, it's still a $10 million increase. In addition to the rising healthcare costs, we also have increases to our transportation. Uh, budget. So each year. Uh, we have the ability to renew our contracts, as most of you know, or all of you know, all of our student transportation is outsourced, so we don't own or maintain any of.
any of our own buses. So we contract with multiple bus companies or transportation companies to provide those services. Each year, the way it's set up is we have the ability to renew our existing contracts with our carriers up to a maximum of the CPI rate, the Consumer Price Index. This year, that was set at 3.58%. The good news is, is we started that process early, seeing how things were trending, and obviously now you can see the cost of oil and all of that, which will have a direct impact on fuel costs, which obviously impacts the transportation contracts. But we were able to negotiate, um.
renewals on all of those contracts at the CPI rate early on in the process, which. is a good thing, because if we had to re-bid, uh, those routes, we would most likely, in this current situation, see substantial increases beyond that 3.5 8%. But the transportation budget itself is, you know, that Cpi rate plus some additional routes that we have to add. That's up another 1.3 million dollars. Okay, so just between our major medical and prescription plan increases in transportation, you know, we're pushing $12 million in increased costs.
And I want you to think about that in terms of the tax levy. So the only piece of revenue that we're looking at is the tax levy. 2% generates about $4 million. So you can see right there that even if we go to 2%, generate that additional $4 million. We're still in the hole $9 million, or have a deficit of $9 million before we even look at another line item, just because of the rising costs on our healthcare plans and our transportation. throw in contractual salary increases that we also have. That's another 5 million dollars. So think of it again like that. To operate within that 2% cap, meaning the only thing we can control, the tax levy.
We can't generate enough money at 2% on the tax relay to cover our contractual salary increases. Okay, so each year we're basically starting in a deficit basis and having to. maneuver and reduce other line items just to meet our salary requirements. So… Again, just to continue on the revenue side. It's becoming more and more. difficult again to operate within that 2% cap world.
Um… 2% on the tax levy is not 2% on our current year expenditures, also keep that in mind. So again, I'm going to keep using it. It's it's we each year as we enter budget season, we we are essentially moving or beginning at a deficit basis, knowing. Um, that we cannot create enough revenue to cover. our fixed cost increases each year. So unfortunately within this budget, yes, we're, you know, we're going to be proposing increases to the levy above and beyond that 2% and we'll get into what that means.
In a little bit, um… And the other thing, you know, we've talked about these. all these increases, you know, to the expenditure side of things. with the amount of reductions, or again, with the at the deficit level we are at, after all of those reductions were made to get us in line with our revenue projections. Um, our general fund is still, or our proposed general fund is still only increasing $1.4 million, or about 1%.
So I've just told you what we have increased costs on 2 major line items of $13 million dollars. But overall, because of our revenue issues, um. We are only able to increase revenue by that 1.4 million dollars. So we we've had to make reductions, obviously, in other areas to balance that. Um, one of… to touch upon that. Why we have that revenue, substantial revenue decrease. is Cherry Hill has historically, over the last couple years, has used substantial amounts of fund balance or surplus.
to balance the operating budget. Um, that… essentially really just postponed or paused some of the more difficult structural reductions that would need to occur, and it's kind of push them down the line a bit. Well, unfortunately, in 26-27, that's… that's kind of… Where we've reached the limit on those one-time resource allocations, and that. In this current year budget in 25-26, $13 million of excess surplus. This is non-recurring revenue, okay, was budgeted to balance the budget.
This proposed budget, we have about $3.75 million in, and that. I can sit here and say is aggressive, or I'm not. 100%, um… confident in, because again, we shouldn't have to utilize surplus or fund balance. to balance our operating budget. But to go from 13 million to zero, I think, is just too much to ask in the 26-27 budget.
So, you know, based on our our current analysis of current year spending. Uh, and actual revenues. We believe that will have a surplus enough to cover that contribution in. 26, 27, and potentially do some other things that I'll get into with it. I think the most important thing to know is. by removing ourselves from the reliance on that surplus, or fund balance to balance our budgets, and going from $13 million to $3 million, that's something that's going to set us up.
Uh, for the future, right? We will be a much healthier. or from a financial standpoint, will be much healthier as we move into future budgets. That's not something, going from that $13 million to $3 million, that's not something we're going to have to deal with every year anymore. or, um, you know, have the need to generate these types of surpluses within our budgets, or tap into our unassigned balances to balance these budgets, because we're removing our reliance on it. So this is kind of like ripping the Band-Aid off, so to speak, in 26, 27. So I can… say that we're not going to experience situations as dire as the one we're currently in. That's not to say that we won't have future issues with continuing, you know, expenditures continuing to grow or additional state aid cuts, but at least we've removed that.
that one piece of reliance on that on that surplus moving forward. So the other thing I wanted to touch upon, and I included in some of the information I shared with the board members is the current status of our capital reserve. So we just talked about our excess surplus. Uh, figures, but we also have a capital reserve fund, which is dedicated specifically. to take care of capital… capital type needs. So, you know, facility repairs and… and… things of that nature. So at one point the capital reserve balance in Cherry Hill within the last 5 years or so was up around $25 million dollars.
That has been degraded to the point that we're now below $4 million. Excuse me, within that capital reserve account. And that's significant in the sense I want to remind everyone that. you know, when the bond referendum was passed, the decision was made locally that the district would assist with the payback of the principal and interest on those bonds. via a $4 million withdrawal essentially from our capital reserve account. And then we would, you know, use it to pay down the debt. And we've done that for the first three years.
of the payback of the bonds. But like I just said a second ago. We don't have a balance over 4 million. Um, to make that type of contribution. So one of the other things that we're looking at through our, um… our analysis of our current year spending and what we believe our surplus will be come June 30th. The state also allows us to make surplus deposits into our capital reserve account each June. So, like I said. We have a number in mind of what we're trying to hit as far as surplus in 2526. We're going to use 3.75 million of that to balance the 2627 budget.
And we're also going to try or attempt to get some of those funds into the cap reserve account to get that balance back above $4 million. Um, the other thing that we're going to talk about is whether or not we can continue making that $4 million contribution. or if maybe it's a lesser contribution, or it could be 0. I'll just add that one of the opportunities we have moving into 26-27 with the debt piece is that based on the amortization schedule of the payback of those bonds, the principal and interest payments are actually dropping about $3 million.
from current year into next year. So that creates an opportunity really where, um… the taxpayers themselves wouldn't necessarily feel the impact of us not making that payment, because it's being offset with that reduction. within the principal and interest. So really, I think it's it's very important. that instead of utilizing surplus in future years, again, to balance budgets. that we continue making investments into that capital reserve account, not only to continue making the debt payments, but also to ensure we have a healthy enough balance to tackle future capital needs that we will absolutely have that are things outside of the scope of the bonds.
You also might recall that when, you know, the original bond amount was significantly higher than even the 300 and. what was it? 56 million? 363, excuse me. I believe I've seen some reports where it was over $400 million worth of work was identified. 496. 396. There you go. So. In addition to making those bond payments, there has also been strategic use of those capital reserve funds to assist in completing some of the projects associated with the bond of things that were pulled out, you know, that were covered by the bond.
So unfortunately, now, when we're sitting at 3.9 million, we don't have that ability. to make the payment, and secondly, to continue investing. in the needs that we have from a capital perspective. So I think it's very important, again, that as we move into the future and surpluses occur that we continue making sure that those surpluses are used widely, and we get that capital reserve balance. back up so that… We're not looking at large scale future referendums, right? We can kind of handle our needs in-house here.
So moving back into the proposed tax levy. piece of this. So what this what we'll be presenting on Tuesday. Hopefully, we have consensus. I'm sorry. Let's move this around so I can see. So this right now, the tentative budget does include a 7.4% increase on the tax levy which would generate approximately, excuse me, 14.8 million dollars.
and additional revenue. That's obviously a significant increase in a lot of you may be asking, how do we exceed that 2% cap that we've been talking about? within, um, you know, the State regulations as far as the 2% cap goes, there are certain things. There's about 4 of them. where if certain things occur, we have the ability, if the board chooses, to exceed that 2% cap. One of those things that we're looking to take advantage of this year is when you have extraordinary increases to your health benefit plans. The state does have an adjustment that allows you.
to attempt to offset those costs. through the levee. Again, the levee being the only thing we can control. So obviously in a year where we're looking at 10 plus million dollar increase on our health benefit plan, which is significantly more than it has been historically. Um, we're looking to take advantage of that health benefit waiver. In addition to the health benefit waiver, that's around 7 million dollars, by the way. So think of 2% is about 4 million. Health benefits waivers, another 7 million. The last piece of that that gets us to the 14.8 is the 3.3 million of bank cap.
that is currently sitting, or I shouldn't say sitting, it's not actual cash we're sitting on. It's really just the ability to. tax above that 2%, so there's about 3.392 million of bank cap that will expire, by the way, if we choose not to utilize that in 26-27. So in this scenario, to get us to the 7.4%, we're proposing going to. what our tax levy cap would be this year to generate those additional revenues to try to offset.
Some of these reductions that unfortunately will occur in addition to these large tax increases. Um… So even going… to that 7.4%. and generating that additional 14.8 million in additional revenue. We're still looking. 14.5 million in additional spending cuts. Um, that will be required to balance. of that, um… And I'll get into it a little bit more, you know, as we… once that deficit became known, one of the things we undertook was a very deep dive.
Um, and to every one of our budgetary line items other than personnel, to start identifying areas or things. where, um, that we could live without, so to speak. And I don't want you to think that. the $8 million of non-personnel reductions that we've identified won't be pain-free. And one of the things I wrote to you in that memo over the weekend was, or yesterday, um… was that we will feel the impact of these cuts.
These are things from, you know, it could be classroom supply accounts to professional services to operational type needs things that. are not waste or abuse. I mean, that's one of the other great things that came out of the 0 based approach. Is that I didn't identify or we didn't identify areas of significant. fluff, I'll say, or waste or abuse. These are things. that are needed and necessary to continue providing the types of programs and services we do here at Cherry Hill. So those $8 million in non-personnel cuts will be difficult, and they will, you know, it will bring some pain with it.
But we are at a spot where we've gotten to a spot where I don't know that we can. reduce anything, you know, non-personnel wise beyond that 8 million dollars. Um, which won't drastically impact certain areas of the operation or within the classrooms themselves. So unfortunately, in addition to that 8 million of non-personnel type cuts, we're looking at about 6.5 million dollars. in direct personnel or staff reductions. on top of that.
So again, it's important to… to think about this, you know, from from the whole spot. So even if we increase the tax levy 7.4%. generate almost $15 billion in additional revenue. We were still looking at almost $15 million in cuts, and the main reason for that, again, is because we no longer have $13 million of surplus to Band-Aid this problem. So it's kind of where we're at, um, as far as the reductions going.
We'll get into those reductions a little bit deeper on Tuesday, but really just trying to paint. a picture as to where we are and why this tax levy increase really is necessary. I'll just add a 7.4% increase on the tax levy will have a significant impact. on our taxpayers. So a 7.4% increase on an average assessed home in Cherry Hill. would bring about a $420 annual increase to the tax bills.
So that's hard to digest. So we're talking about $15 million worth of reductions to programs and services we provide, and also telling our taxpayers and our parents. that we're going to raise their tax bill $420, and that's just on the average assessment. So that's. kind of the level of the situation, or dire situation that we do, unfortunately, find ourselves in. So on the the non-personnel side again, I probably got ahead of myself a little bit. But these cuts were very targeted.
Again, we went line by line. We have a spreadsheet with several hundred lines on it of these reductions. Very detailed. So we know what we're looking at, but obviously our focus was on really trying to reduce the discretionary type spending and find. find some ways to reduce that wouldn't have dramatic, you know, classroom… type impacts.
So again, um… After the non-personnel type reductions, you have to keep in mind that about, or roughly 80% of our budget is salary and benefits of our people, and that's just… the nature of our industry. That's just the way our cost structure is. We're very labor-intensive, um… type of industry. So again, after those non-personnel cuts, we're looking at staff reductions in the $6.5 million range. Um, these are certainly going to be very difficult. All staff reductions are. I know we experienced some staff reductions this year as well.
But obviously, as we go through this process, what we're where we're looking to find. Um, some of these positions are areas that we can hopefully reduce through attrition. So whether it be retirements or resignations and simply not replacing those individuals. Um, that's where we're obviously looking first. Um, what doesn't have the most impact on the educational programs? Um, things of that nature, but… you know, I just want it to be known that these these staff reductions aren't strategic.
you know, they weren't put out there to say, we just need to find ways to reduce. This is a direct result of our financial reality and the deficit that we have. Alright. So again, getting back, you know, long term wise, you know, I think these cuts are necessary. It's going to be a new norm, unfortunately. Here, I think, you know, we obviously will be able to navigate it as best as we can, but it will provide. I believe some longer term stability where we're we aren't finding ourselves.
in these types of situations year over year. But, like I said, these fixed cost types of increases will continue. Whether it be from our medical insurance side or salary increases or, you know, energy, electricity, gas, all of that. So we have to continue as we as we continue building budgets year after year. We have to, you know, continue this process of being thorough. Really looking for efficiencies wherever we can find them, and it has to become something that we do not only from October through April, but something that we're doing throughout the year, and that's something that I will be doing, and I'll be leading that.
charge, and that's why we're keeping a very close eye on every dollar that comes in and every dollar that goes out. of our bank account. So I think, again, you know, one of the important things that we're doing is we're removing our reliance on surplus, one, because it doesn't exist. And we're going to strategically continue trying to get those surplus monies back into our capital reserve account and rebuild, you know, a steady base there. Um, and continue, um… balancing future year budgets responsibly. Again.
So looking ahead. Again, kind of just to… reiterate, um… This was a very thorough process, and I can't emphasize that enough. I do have to give many thanks to our school administrators, to our department. supervisors to our Lewis team here, central. This is not something that was constructed in my office alone, or Dr. Morton and I. This was a.
very collaborative effort. Through months of work, and then… intense review, I'll say, um… But unfortunately, there are some structural, you know, deficits that exist that… where these unfortunate cuts. Are going to have to happen. But it will get us into a better financial position. In the long term. And unfortunately it's going to require substantial increase to the tax levy to help help offset some of those.
reductions again for, um. every percent or every dollar that we do not. increase that levy by if we do not go to that max cap, I'll call it for us, will be an additional reduction to the budget. So we have to be. We have to be mindful of that. In addition to that, by raising the levy to this… to this level and taking advantage of that bank cap, that sets. a new, um… you know, tax levy, you know.
balance, so to speak, that will generate additional or more revenue in future years as well. which will help offset again additional future. future year increases. So again, lastly, you know, obviously, we have our tentative budget presentation on Tuesday. We'll be asking the board to adopt some form of the tentative budget. Uh, at that meeting, so that we can meet that statutory submission deadline of March 27th to the county. That's where the DOE does their technical review.
of our budget, and once they approve and authorize that we will bring. The final version of the budget back to the board on April 28th, so we'll conduct a public hearing at that level, and that's where we'll we'll look to make final adoption. So just keep in mind that when the tentative budget is. hopefully adopted on Tuesday. there is still, you know, a month or 5 weeks or so of opportunity to continue these discussions and deliberations, and we can make changes to what that final version.
looks like. So I don't want you to think, um… that, you know, this is the only time you're going to hear your only ability to to keep looking at this and studying it and figuring out what that final version kind of looks like. So with that, that's kind of our current status where we currently sit. It's a lot of information. I've poured a lot of information on you over the last 24 hours or so. I know. I wish I had, um… something more positive to say, but I don't think this comes as a complete shock to any of you. This is again something that I've heard this board talk about.
for the last several years, um… And with the instability with state aid and some of these cost increases, it's something that we're going to have to continue looking at. Very hard, so… With that, I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schimp, and thank you for all the work that you did on this. I know it was a heavy lift. Especially coming in your first year. Starting a new budgeting process. I'm sure we all wish, you know, we had better news, but this is what we have in order to begin the discussion here on the board level. What I'm going to do is I'm going to give each board member an opportunity to make.
initial comments or questions, I'm going to time it, um, for about 3 min. And the purpose of this starting this way is so that everybody can kind of get their thoughts out on the table, because I don't want us to go down one path of the conversation and have other members feel like their conversation, their idea didn't get. put out there. So I'm going to give everybody sort of an open opportunity. I'm going to time you. just so we can start. to get a sense of where everybody is and what the key questions are that the board wants to deliberate tonight. This is really our moment for conversation. By the time we come back on Tuesday, we need to be ready to vote on the initial budget submission.
So, once everybody who… not… you're not obligated, but once everybody who wishes to speak has had an initial chance to speak. I'm going to open it up for more of a discussion where we can go back and forth and. decide, you know, where kind of we are on these, ask additional questions of Mr. Schimp, anything that we want to look into, we want answers to before we come back to vote on Tuesday. Does that make sense? So I am Mr. Fain, I'm going to use my phone as a timer. for the three minutes as governance chair, I'm not… well, I am breaking the rules, but I'm asking for your permission. Don't throw anything at me.
It's only being used as a timer. Adam will keep me honest. Um, is there anybody who would like to start? Dr. Braddock. I won't need the timer. I'll be quick. I promise. First, Mr. Schimp, thank you. This sucks. I'm sure you didn't have very much fun. Looking at these numbers, and certainly we didn't have any fun listening to them, but like you said, not much of a surprise. I thought everything you said was pretty thorough. I only really have one question and it relates to one of the major.
expenditures we have as a district, that being transportation. You mentioned that. Um, we negotiated with… were contracted with the transportation companies that. The increase in price is tied to the CPI. Is that time constrained or does that deal expire at some point in the future where we will be. kind of beholden to fuel costs. Uh, not for 2627. Um, so we were able… this board already approved and took action on those contracts at that CPI rate for for the future school year, 2627, so we are locked in on those.
And with that, we'd have to revisit that again for 27, 28, 2029. Correct. And their annual renewals. Okay. So we could look at even further increases in transportation costs if we can't… negotiate the CPI time. Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. That's it. Other board members? Mr. Fain. Um, I understand. I don't know who this… this might be more of a Dr. Morton question. Um, I understand that personnel is the most obvious choice of area to go when looking at costs, considering the long-term effects of reducing.
personnel. I guess my question is, looking at the non-personnel cuts and decisions that were made over the last couple of months. How do you, and if there's a potential for looking at that further after next week, how do you prioritize. those things. I understand that trying to reduce the impact on students. But what are some other considerations that are put into non-personnel cuts and how to prioritize those things? Yeah, it's a good question, and it's it's it's a collaborative effort. So these, you know, it could be, you know, if I'm looking at, let's just say the buildings and grounds budget, right? I'm going line by line on that. I'll have my buildings and grounds team.
sitting in front of me, and we're going line by line, and we're talking about, okay, well, we have X amount of dollars dedicated for this field maintenance. Is there something we can do differently to recoup dollars there? Okay, yeah, we… We did this, or we did that, and that's how you start accumulating, um. or getting comfortable with some of those non-personnel type reductions. It's just coming. It's really coming to an agreement, making sure we're on the same page with the… with the department, or the school, whatever, that it would impact, and seeing if they're comfortable with with that type of reduction. You know, supply accounts are something that that usually gets hit across the board. And again, I don't like to paint broad strokes, because every building… Has different needs, so that's why I had each of them individually look inside their own budgets, and.
get comfortable with areas that they thought, you know, they could reduce. So it's, again, um… you know, transport… we're going through the transportation routes, and we're trying to find efficiencies, and we're looking at. Again, I know you've had this conversation. It's not a popular one. We're looking at what moving those mileage things and reducing courtesy busing, what kind of savings would those generate, and. with the type of savings that it would generate, would that outweigh the displeasure that would create with our parents? Things of that nature. So all… every reduction is looked at, um, talked about the impact of that reduction is discussed, and.
At the end of the day, just hard decisions have to be made and sometimes it… could be as easy as, you know, looking at a line item and and. you know, just looking at historical spending, again, that's not what I asked them to do. I asked them for what they believe their needs were to be. But if you have, you know, an account, especially when we're looking at a deficit of this size, if you have a line item that is, you know, let's say 15-20% higher than it was in the previous year, we're going to talk about those first. Right? That's where those those conversations begin and seeing why, you know, is it that much higher? And what is it you're looking at there? And… Again, those conversations have been going on for for weeks.
Thank you, that's very helpful. Do I have time for one more question? Oh, so… oh, I think mine was, like, 30 seconds, which was, like, two and a half minutes. That's up to, uh, there's winters, though, yeah. You only talked for, like, 30 seconds, so… Okay, it's a… I don't know if this is relatively simple to answer in this amount of time, but thinking, um, I appreciated the discussion on making changes. This year for kind of, like, the first time that you'll see long-lasting and future effects on. Um, I know… I don't remember what committee it was in, but we had recently discussed that the governor is, or the… whatever, the state is looking, finally, potentially looking at the formula itself.
Which, even if they do, wouldn't really have impact for another probably two years or so. In the event that we make a decision this year to increase this amount, just, again, just to cover the residual of what you didn't cut. Um, obviously increasing it is still including a lot of cuts. And two years from now, the formula is magically fixed, and we do see more of a revenue stream that's consistent with the needs of our district. Would the things that you're doing today… I don't even know if this discussion is being had, but I guess what I'm asking, is the discussion being had, that the decisions that are being made this year, and probably next year, and previous decisions, would they remain in effect so that.
If we're burdening the taxpayers year after year after year. upwards of 90% of our budget, our budget, our full budget. Is there opportunity in the future that if it does, if we do see more money from the State, that we could reduce that tax burden, or is the part that I struggle with, and I struggle with this every single year, is that it's. It's not just a 7% increase on like what I bought my house at five years ago. It's 7% on the 2% last year on the 2.5% the year before on the 5% like on the percentages that keep coming. So is there any… possibility that we would see any sort of relief from that, assuming and having to assume that we were to see something more beneficial from the state, like more increase from the state.
Yeah, I mean, the simple answer to that is yes. That opportunity will exist, but like I said, we're going to have to look at each budget as they come. So would there be an op… if all of the sudden, you know, we received an influx. of state aid, would there be, um, an opportunity to look at the tax levy, or potentially reduce it? Yes. Whether or not that's recommended or that comes to fruition, that, you know, that's hard to say. But what I don't want to do is, again, rely on those non-recurring type revenues to balance budgets or.
Um, to add positions or other things, you know, coming from the last district I was in, that was, you know, similar to Cherry Hill, we were all out on the road together petitioning the state for more aid. Uh, we were critically underfunded, um, and once we started receiving those state aid increases, um. we still had to be very deliberate and careful about and intentional about the types of things that we brought back on that were permanent, recurring types of costs. Knowing that the formula could fluctuate in the future and that.
positions that we brought on because we received an additional 5 million dollars could go right back out the door the next year, similar to the wild swings that Cherry Hill has seen. Uh, and their state aid allocations over the years. Like, for instance, in this current year, um. the the formula was run, and all of a sudden equalization aid. We were no longer qualified for. rerun the formula, now all of a sudden we qualify for $5 million in equalization aid, so… Um, we just have to be… we have to take each budget as it comes. You know, but with the tax levy, unfortunately, no, yes, there's certainly an impact, and all of us who live in New Jersey understand.
the burden that it has. But again, it's it's stable and it's recurring. Um, state aid, I wouldn't consider that as stable or recurring. Um, so we'd have to be careful. Thank you. Miss Manzano. Just something really quick. If you're able. First, thank you so much, because I know that you've been working pretty tirelessly on this. You had said that it wouldn't necessarily be the be all end all. And so what I mean by that is, you know, we're going to make a decision to approve or not approve on.
Tuesday. Are you able to speak at all and share with us, or share with everyone what could potentially change after a decision has been made to approve a budget? Yeah, I you know that I'll say the numbers are the numbers, right? The deficit is the deficit. The things that we can. continue to look at. in order, again, because this is such a condensed… timeline that we get put in, even though here at the district level, we've been working on this for a long time, we didn't necessarily know the dire situation we were in until late in this process.
you know, we, the administration, tries to keep you as up to speed as possible, and the good thing here is that we have committees and committees of the whole, and you've heard me talking about these anticipated medical increases for months, right? So. But unfortunately, will still have to be made. But, you know, for instance, if the board, you know, unanimous or not, maybe unanimously, or the majority doesn't agree with that tax hike. Well, that will require us to go back into the budget and identify additional cuts.
to it in order to bring it balanced. So discussions will continue. You know, again, we'll be presenting the budget that you know Dr. Morton's, that Dr. Morton is comfortable with. Um, to the board and what he believes, you know, we can function under. Um… But it also it also needs your… the board support, so… Again, without… going to the full taxing authority, it will require additional reductions beyond what have already been identified.
Mr. Greenbaum. Thank you. First, I just want to say thank you very much to Mr. Shimp, Finance Office and administrators across the district for all the work going into this budget, particularly the analysis of our current financial situation and thoughtful approach in. identifying a long-term path forward. I don't have any questions. I've certainly been asking them nonstop for the last at least week. Um, but I did want to highlight some items under, uh, key drivers of rising expenditures.
You know, we talked about how. employee health benefits have gone up by 10 million. And yet we didn't get any additional state aid to cover that. All we got was more taxing authority. That means we have permission to pay for it ourselves. The same discussion being had in districts across the state. increasing transportation costs. They go up by the CPI every year, and there's no promise they won't go up by more. They went up by about 700,000 in this budget, yet the state cut our categorical aid for transportation by a million.
We talked about special education cost growth and the increasing cost and needs of our special ed population. We got cut $4 million in categorical aid for special ed this year. You know, this year our starting point is a deficit of 29 million. That's slightly more than our total state aid was last year. And instead we got a 3% cut. These increases are unprecedented and unconscionable, and we need a sustainable path forward.
Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Dreisen. Thank you. One question, and then one brief comment. First, and really just so again, echo the thanks for all the hard work. Since we're in a public context. One thing I didn't hear Mr. Greenbelt actually just alluded to it a bit, but I wanted to give you an opportunity just to address. is the challenge that you've been talking about tonight unique to Cherry Hill? Yeah, thank you. Certainly not. You know, I just had a roundtable with all the other business administrators in Camden County. The other day and I can tell you they're all going through a very, very similar.
situation, um, health benefit costs. are crushing, um… not to school judges, but I mean, in this sense, I mean, they're crushing school districts this year. Um, all schools are experiencing these types. These types of increases, and they're all dealing with the balance. between, you know, having to, you know, tax more and burden… further burden the residents, and make some very difficult cuts. at their at their program levels. You know, I know the boards of Ed and these other districts are struggling as well, and I'm my guess is there's going to be.
boards of education that don't want to adopt these types of budgets, and I understand that. But no, we are certainly not alone in this. And… we're all talking about the same types of things and reductions, and… anger about the crazy fluctuations in the state state aid. funding levels, and so on and so forth. So, we are not unique in that sense. Thank you. And then the one brief comment, and I go back and forth on whether even to share this, because I don't think it's particularly productive. But and this may be more for the Communications Committee, but just to consider one of our roles as boards is to, you know, be that liaison with the community.
And even tonight, we're seeing it. So just I say this with positive intent as we're going through the budget process moving forward. the presentation, which is the… I know the focus is on the content, but a lot of these big stock images, when I think we could just have bullets of the content, and so then it's easier to read. difficult to digest the content. It's more just how we're messaging the information. I just think as much as we can make it easy for the community. would be something for us to keep in mind.
Thank you. Miss Stern. A few comments and a few questions. So if you would be generous enough to kind of start and stop, because I don't I don't want to. I don't want to. Okay. Thank you. So, no, not that just the answers. So I can throw them all out at you at once, maybe, and then we can take it one at a time. Um, just, I think, emphasizing the point, um, that 90% of our budget is coming from taxpayer levy.
Um, you know, it, you know, several years ago during fair funding, um, it was, um, the average around the state was, um, 65%, and that was, like, kind of the goal, right? When we were severely underfunded. Um, here we are, and this is, like, now the standard. I mean, it's just… it's just unconscionable, which is a word that I stolen from Mrs. Palmer, so full disclosure. Um, so, you know, I think that speaks to conversations that need to happen in Trenton, and I believe that's something I was going to ask Mrs. Winters to.
To touch on after. you know, as one of my things, you know, what are we doing in Trenton? What are we trying to do? What are we as a community? The other, um, you know, um, comments or questions are. Um, I think that health insurance. It's lovely to have, you know, the type of health insurance benefits we have, and it's important that we have. Excellent health insurance benefits for employees. It's also, it's crushing us, as you said, Mr. Schimp.
You know, and as someone who works in healthcare and sees directly what are the standards of health insurance around this country for the average worker, no matter. How underpaid or well-paid their job is. You know, it's vastly different from our health insurance benefits. And it's, again, it's a lovely thing, but. I don't see that as being sustainable, and I think, you know, when. When we are asking, we have to ask all of our stakeholders to be part of this.
Um, our taxpayers are one group we're asking. There's burden going to be a burden in all of our buildings because of what we're talking about, the reductions. But we have to really. Going forward, I think we really have to, um, we have to ask all of our stakeholders to. have a more realistic approach to, you know, what we're doing, because $10 million is beyond. Um, so that's more of a comment. And if you have anything to say to that, Mr. Shimp, you know, I'd love. I welcome that.
I also wanted to specifically ask you, Mr. Schimp, if you could. answer the question that comes up a lot, which is. Um, you know, we added preschool in several years ago, um, you know, essentially working towards universal preschool. If we cut that out, if we scale, if we stopped offering that, you know, would that improve our situation financially? How would that impact our budget to cut that out? Because that's a question that does come up, so I want to make sure that we, you know, we kind of ask that question. So yeah, I mean, if you can speak on the health insurance benefits, what are some opportunities that, you know, maybe we as.
you know, all of our stakeholders collectively can come together and make an effort on. If there's anything you can offer ideas for that, and then also the the question about preschool, and then. This winter is about the advocacy in Trenton. That's it. I made it. Well, I'll start with the… the health benefit plans, and. This is also a frustrating… thing that came from the State level. So right now we're operating under the chapter 44 law, right? Which basically legislated and took collective bargaining bargaining out of the mix.
and legislated the health plans that we can offer our employees. Not only legislated the health plans, but took away our ability to even negotiate anything within those plans with our unions. While Chapter 44 is in place, and until it sunsets, I believe in 2027, next year, or 2028? So yes, there there. They're very good. They're high level.
health insurance plans, but it's something or a predicament the state has placed us in, and that we don't have the ability to sit down with our unions and negotiate efficiencies or cost savings within them. There are certain things, or there's… you know, very few things that we can… we could attempt to negotiate with them. Some of that's on the formulary basis on prescription, but we don't even have the ability to negotiate, sit down and even have a conversation about, say, co-pays. until chapter 44 is out of place. And in addition to mandating those plans, they also mandated.
The employee contribution level. So under Chapter 78, when that came in, I believe that was what 2010 or 11. That was the first time we're really public school employees contributed towards their health benefit plans. And from where I sit from the finance side of things, that was a huge win. Um, that Chris Christie, I believe, got… got done. And Chapter 78 helped, you know. kind of stabilize.
the health benefit cost increases, because Chapter 78, we were paying a percentage of the premium. So, as every year, when if we had large scale increases on the premium side. The employee's contribution would go up, and they would bear a part of of that burden. Now, in the Chapter 44 world, people are paying a percent of their salary. So in a year where we have this monstrous increase to our health plans, we're not able to offset any of that increase.
on the contributions that our employees make to towards it. So Chapter 44 has. really rolled back a lot of the good that Chapter 78 did. And again, that'll be an unpopular statement. No one likes, you know, having to pay. More towards their health benefits, but it's something that had to be, unfortunately, legislated because it wasn't something that school districts were getting done at the… at the bargaining table. preschool. You know, the district is receiving upwards of, I believe it's like $14 million of state aid towards our preschool expansion and our preschool program this year.
That's not to say, necessarily, that there aren't some costs. that are, um, that the general fund or the operating budget is funding. So to answer your question, if you eliminated preschool, would there be some savings on the operating budget side? The simple answer is yes, there would be. You know, a lot of that really… falls into the transportation category. I mean, the way the preschool. aid is distributed in the way, you know, it's legislated and what we're allowed to budget and all that, unfortunately.
That aid will not bear the full cost or the brunt of the transportation requirement with it. There's also the requirement when you have that preschool program that there's the we have to contribute towards the special needs students or the special education population. Again, the short answer is if you eliminate a preschool, yes, there would be some cost reductions to the general fund side.
You used up your 3 minutes. I have 10 seconds. What? Let's go around. Everybody's… this is not the end. This is just giving everybody a chance, and then there'll be discussion. Ms. Palmer. Um, so Mr. Schimp again, I appreciate the approach that you took here. I think it's clearly 8 million dollars, even though they're not cuts. They're not painless cuts. That's meaningful savings, and I appreciate that that line-by-line zero-based budget approach yielded at least that much. It's 8 million dollars less that we have to put on the back of our taxpayers.
Um, you touched on at. what administration is recommending at, you know. 7 point whatever percent increase. I think for the benefit of. you know, because the question was going to be. I don't think anybody here at this table wants to do that. But this is a year where it's like which which pain do we want to inflict and on whom? And… Where and how much do we want to hurt ourselves, and how? What… what would it look like, just in… in numbers? Devastating is an understatement?
what would we potentially look at if we came down from that 7%? And then on the flip side, what conversations have there been around opportunities for new revenue? So I'm thinking like. We've got these beautiful new APRs. Do we have fee structures in place to rent those out? Is there an appetite for things like that? Not that those are predictable revenue sources and probably not that meaningful if you're talking about. 14 to 25 million dollars in deficit. But at this point, I think we're in a situation where we just need to start.
Looking at all the things. Yeah, you know, the best way to answer that is… For every dollar that we reduce. the levy increase by is an additional dollar we have to find in the form of cut. So as we talked about in executive session around the personnel side, you saw what some of that looks like. Um, that will only intensify if we don't utilize, you know, the tax levy to its fullest extent.
So additional reductions, I can tell you will. change the way, um… significantly change the way Cherry Hill Public Schools operate and the way they look. It will touch everything, um… from class size to buildings and grounds to transportation, to… Direct classroom instruction. It'll touch every area of the budget. Um, unfortunately. Um… What was the the second piece?
Revenue. Yeah. You know, again, I think I'm always looking to maximize and achieve as much revenue as possible. You know, yes, our our buildings are constantly utilized, and we have fee structures in place, but. you know, each year we're generating, you know, $100,000 in facility rental. We're talking about very small. minuscule things, you know, and we have… there's already a fee structure in place for our students at the athletic and extracurricular level.
You know, I mean, that's… that's painful to parents as well, when you tell them you're raising their taxes, and we've tried to stay away from that fee, but even those fees alone are only generating $150,000. It's not even scratching the surface as to what our athletic and extracurricular programs cost. So. I'm not, I'm not saying that we can't continue to look for additional ways to increase other miscellaneous or, you know, other types of. Hopefully recurring revenue sources. But again, the way the formula is constructed, and.
Um, you know, the burden the formula has placed on the taxpayers in the form of their local fair share. Again, it's 85 to 90% of our budget is the tax levy. So we'll continue looking at everything, but it's… Those little miscellaneous one-offs are not going to solve these structural problems. Understood. Did I have any time left? If not, we'll come back to me. It's totally okay. Yeah, you only use about a minute and a half. Okay. Um, the only other thing I want to say is just a comment. I mean, if you look at where our categorical aid was cut, a million from transportation, 4 million from special education.
And surprise, we got $5 million back in equalization aid. Just reinforces, even though we all know this in the room, that this is just a shell game. And the state just. continues to manipulate the numbers to get to the result they want to achieve for each of our school districts. So, again, I hope that everybody who has the power to do so is going to make their thoughts known, not just here in the boardroom, where you absolutely should continue to do it. but put more pressure on our representatives in Trenton than we have historically done in the past. As a community, and demand that they meet with you, that they talk to you, that they give you the time and respect that we deserve as equal taxpayers, because we are absolutely not equal recipients of the tax money that we pay.
So please do that. I'll just add real quick to from the state aid standpoint, I may not have mentioned this. But based on our current year figures and the fact that 5 million dollars now came back in the form of equalization aid. According to the formula, we're still overfunded by the state by approximately 5 million dollars. So which is insane. We are not overfunded. We are. We are footing the bill for 90% of what it costs to educate our children, and that number is not going to go down.
I'm done. I hear you. And I mean, you and I have had this conversation. It's in the State constitution. It is the State's responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education for our children. The State's responsibility. And they are failing. So that's a preview, Miriam, of what I will be saying. The morning after the budget vote, I will be in Trenton that Wednesday morning. I have a spot. And they're going to hear from me, and whether it… makes a difference this year, I don't know, but I think the cumulative effect of all of us showing up, I am seeing it from every district across the state.
Republican districts, shore districts, North Jersey districts, all the districts. Everybody is feeling these impacts. And everybody is facing the same. concerns. I mean, to your point, Miss Palmer. They knew that they were going to cut us the maximum. And then they fudge the numbers so that we got to minus 3%. It's magical how that happens. Miss Cummings. So, much of what you just said was really what I was going to touch on as well, and I apologize. I don't really have a lot of voice, so I'll try and be fast. But when you when you look at last year's budget, which was $260 million dollars.
$201 million of that came from local tax levy. I mean, talk about… serious municipal overburden. We are beyond, beyond that with state aid last year at 31.6 million. And they, you know, we have CPI, and we have cost of living increases. health benefit increases, and then again, with the added burden of Chapter 44. The state is asking us to do all these things without.
helping us achieve them. So again, like Mrs. Winter said. I don't know who's coming to save us, but we sure as heck really need to try, and you need. We need to make our voices heard. And I do know, you know, there's a fair funding meeting coming up, and we say this every meeting. There's a fair funding meeting coming up. Find them on Facebook, fair funding Cherry Hill. Call into our meetings, they're… 30, 40 minutes long. They're run by Alana Yaris. She's incredibly efficient, and, uh, you know, we have great ideas to really make your voices heard. Um… And if it's something you're willing to do, I wouldn't be shy about your statements. I would just lay it all out on the table because there's nothing left to lose at this point.
And that is the truth. I'm now going to have just open it up to discussion among board members. Everybody, I think, had an opportunity to sort of. give us their perspective, the things that they're focusing on. I heard transportation. I heard health benefits. I heard property taxes. I heard State aid in the formula. So yeah, I just want to have some open discussion among board members. This is our only opportunity to do it as a board of 9. And before we come in to vote on the initial budget submission on Tuesday.
Don't everybody go first? I'll go first. I. I'm not really sure what to say. As somebody who worked in Trenton for a long time and knows. the legislators that represent this district, I think they have a moral responsibility at this point to do what their job is, which is represent us. And I don't feel that they are. Um, it's not like for us on here on the board. We are elected to the board. We are elected as board members for all the kids in all the schools and all of Cherry Hill. We represent all of them. That's not the way the Legislature works.
Our legislators are elected from this district to represent our interests in Trenton. and I can't see that that's happening. Cherry Hill is the largest district in South Jersey. We are larger than Camden City at this point. There is no way that we can make this budget work. When we are being asked to fund 90% of it. What they're asking us to do is impossible and a burden on our taxpayers that is. just completely out of control after we asked them, and they approved the bond referendum money.
Our legislators need to do their jobs. Frankly, because this isn't a problem that we can solve ourselves. We have one lever, and it's the property taxes. We don't have a multiplicity of ways. to fund this budget. We only have one thing that we can do. which is increased property taxes. or make catastrophic cuts, and this year we are doing both. And I don't… Cherry Hill is known and has pride in the excellent education that we provide for our students here.
Schools are the heart of this town. Nobody wants to lose that. I definitely don't have the answers, but I know that we can't solve this. on our own. So, yes, I will go to Trenton on. the Wednesday after we vote. I talked to Alana today. talked about fair funding. But I really don't know where we go from here. And I think the advocacy moving forward has to be towards a change in the funding formula itself. Because it's clearly not doing what it was intended to do.
as the needs of our students have rose, our special education population has risen, our special education aid was cut. We are now up to 25%, one quarter of the students in this district are free and reduced lunch students. They can't tell me Cherry Hill's a rich town that can afford this. And if that's what they're saying, maybe they need to come here and walk around our schools and take a look. at the Excellent Education our teachers provide for our kids every single day. And how are they supposed to provide it without resources? So that was my three minutes, I guess. And that's all I'm going to say.
Dr. Brown. Do we have the power to request they come here? We're talking about going to Trenton all the time. We go to them. Can we put pressure on them to come here and talk to us? I'm going to let Miss Stern answer that because she did that once. Yes, we did actually as a as a citizen. You know, during my involvement with fair funding, and I want to say that was probably 2017, I'd have to look back. Um, you know, having conversations with our local representatives, you know, small meetings that we had with them. We said, come to our district and the acting commissioner of education, top person at the DOE came, visited several of our schools.
Um, it was a powerful moment. It didn't change the funding at all at that time. There was a change in the law for the entire state the following year. But yeah, I mean, you know. Having been very involved for many years in Trenton, you know, just in terms of advocacy and local level, I mean, all of our calls, you know, I shared some of people on the board asked me, well, you know, what was it like a few years ago? And I said the slides that we had.
Other presentations of things that we did. They've come. When I say come here, I mean… come to a board meeting. Well, they've seen our schools, they actually… Dr. Morton, you would know, because you were more involved back then with the administration. But, you know, the acting commissioner went to Cherry Hill West. I believe he Dr. Martin, do you recall the schools that he visited? I don't recall all of the schools, but he definitely did come by Cherry Hill West. I do recall that, and visited a few others. That was, uh, Dr. Repolette, um, who was the commissioner at the time.
And that's, I mean, that's great, but what I'm talking about is face-to-face with us, and face-to-face with people out there. So that's… that's what the… that's what the testimony is at the budget hearings that… that Mrs. Winters is going to, that quite a few of us, some people in the room, and, you know, we've gone to year after year in Trenton. We go to them, and they… we attend their committee, and we have opportunities to speak. You can speak more about that, Mrs. I would like to read from an email that I received as a constituent of Assemblyman Lewis Greenwald, who is currently the Majority Leader of the Assembly.
This is from his email as a constituent that I received. We were also glad to hear the Governor's commitment to working towards an improved school funding formula that better serves districts like ours. That's our district. He represents us. As our local school districts begin developing their annual budgets, we will work. closely with them to assess how the state aid numbers impact our students, teachers, and communities. I suggest we let him know. Ms. Palmer. I would also remind people that the same majority leader, Assemblyman Greenwald visited and read to Russell Knight Elementary School.
During Read Across America Week just a few weeks ago, and he himself is a product of Cherry Hill Public Schools. And I would like to know, you know, just rhetorically. how he would have felt if his own kids were in our district. And their schools were facing these kinds of cuts, or how his parents would have felt if Cherry Hallease had undergone those kinds of cuts when he was a student. I think it's a great question, Kurt, to your point, there's nothing that stops any of us from inviting them to come to a meeting.
we would see what the answer would be. Madam President, may I? Sure. It's a public meeting. They can come. Yeah, I mean, my point is, I know they're going to the schools and talking to people and stuff, but I mean, I've been moved by. the public in here, myself. Not that I'm saying they would, but I think it would be a powerful image to have them in here and hear from parents, hear from teachers. I mean, we can try. I know it's not going to matter. Miss Sure Fame. So, as far as budget goes, I feel like at this point it is what it is. I don't really have a whole lot more to put in to the conversation, because we're obviously in just a terrible situation. But I feel like every single year we sit here and we get stressed out that the state doesn't listen, the state doesn't do anything, but I just want to remind everyone that.
The public is who puts those people in place. So if they're not doing what we want for them, why do we continue to put them there? And we can go to the… we can go to the State, we can go to the Senate, we can sit there, and we can cry about everything, but they're not doing what they need to do. So just keep that in mind. We seem to be harder on who we put in these Board of Ed positions. than we do at the state, and that's where they're really going to hear our voices. Don't continue to put them in those positions. Anyone else? Ms. Palmer. Sorry, I know that I'm making a lot of cuts. I do.
I just I also just want to make sure that the public understands that. I feel like there's this tendency like we talk about. How are we? How are we making these cuts? And we talk in terms of like. personnel savings, and I just… I don't want there to be a misunderstanding. that we're just okay with that like that's… That's not where we want to cut. It's just. as you stated earlier, Mr. Schimp, I mean, 80% of our costs are people. Those cuts are people. Those cuts are jobs. Those cuts are… the teachers who are educating our kids.
at assistants that are in the schools, front office staff support, you know, admin support, whatever that ends up looking like. They're people. And, you know, I'm cognizant of that. But even if we dropped it all the way down to. I mean, we're at… we're recommending the maximum. And it's still a lot, and… Personally, I am sorry that that is a decision that we're going to have to make. So I just want to say that for the record, because I think that gets lost in when we have these conversations. We are all very conscious of that. We all have or will have or have had kids in the schools, and we are deeply, deeply appreciative.
of the work that is being done, and the quality of the education that our kids are receiving, and will receive regardless of what this budget looks like, right? Like life goes on. Kids are resilient, our schools are resilient. It is terrible. But you know our kids will still get a good. We will find a way to make our education. Fantastic for those kids, even as it looks different, because I get the sense that it will look different.
Moving forward. Um… But I'm still concerned, because I think, as you said, Mr. Schimp, those. uncontrollable costs will continue to increase and the only levers that we have are tax levy and personnel. Um, so I just… personally don't know where we continue to go from here. But it's not good. So that's all just food for thought. I don't… you know. This is this is tough to wrap our my my personal head around. We knew that it would be.
you know, I've just got a lot to sit on and think about this this weekend. Other board members. Ms. Stern. First of all, I didn't thank Mr. Schimp when I because I didn't want to. I started on my time, and that was that. So thank you, Mr. Shim. Um, you know… It's a lot of difficult work to do and I appreciate it very much. Your hard work and your diligence and your, um, you know, honestly, you're just very straightforward about everything, and I appreciate that. And I think I share Mrs. Palmer, you know, I really share this is a and I think I think it's fair to say that I.
Can't imagine that any of us 9 don't feel this way. This is just a… Feels like a very, um, awful contemplating decision to have to think about these things, to think about reductions, to have to think about an increased tax levy, because we all know that. Um, no matter what, you know, the helm sales in our community have been, or the influx of perhaps some outlier, you know, high earners that exist in our community, you know, that's, you know.
The average assessed home, the average taxpayer, you know, the person who's right in the middle. That's really what this this this formula should be based on. And it's really not. It's just impactful. So I, you know, don't take it lightly at all. Um, you know, I'm grateful that, you know. We don't have, okay, well, you're cut 4 million in special ed, so we're going to cut 4 million out of, you know, out of our, you know, out of our school. I mean, we're just… we're not that kind of linear, thank goodness. Obviously, not that we ever have been, but, you know.
I particularly think about special ed a lot, and I, you know, I think Mr. Schimp, the decision we've made all along, you know, my question about preschool was, you know. How much, you know, is it impact? You know, it's certainly transportation-wise, there's some impact. Um, overall, however, the vast, vast majority of our expanded preschool program is funded fully by the state. Um, so, you know, I think about, well, what does that get us? That gets us kids more ready for school, which we are hearing now this year is a huge improvement, like, you know, from, from, you know, kindergarten-ready children.
We know that it helps intervene earlier with special education. So, you know, we're weighing out all the pieces, those are considerations. And I think about when we used to offer paid preschool so that we were compliant with inclusion, 'cause that was a requirement. Um, we offset the cost of preschool back then from our, from our operating our general budget anyway. Um, so I guess overall. you know, when I think about those pieces, you know, like, what do we have a good thing going for us? You know, that's always a factor in my mind, you know. It's not it's not that it has zero impact on our overall operating budget, but it's.
very small, in my opinion, for what we're… what our students are actually… and our families are getting from that. Um, especially as I encounter a lot of young families who are, you know, grateful to have. um, you know, preschool is part of their, you know, public education for their kids. Um, so… Yeah, I mean, I I think Chapter 44. That's another conversation that, you know, as we're advocating in Trenton, you know, as painful as that is, you know, I I you know, Mr. Shimp, I there's probably a lot of things that I have strong opinions about past.
political pieces, but I I I would say to you that I certainly do agree with you on the point that. You know, the reality of contributing towards health insurance and the ability of employers to have some variability in what they're offering for health insurance, it's critical. It's critical to survival for any entity, any. organization, any business. And so I would also ask that that be included in some of the, you know, the discussion of, you know, what we're advocating for is.
is, you know, perhaps that has to sunset sooner, you know? I mean, I think it's… And I know that that's not popular, and… But, you know, I used to have those conversations in my own home, you know, it's not reasonable to think that, you know, the rest of the country, people, people, you know, contribute towards their health insurance benefits, and and and they contribute a lot of money for sometimes really very challenging health insurance benefits. Excuse me. That's another area, but I thank you for going to Trenton on our behalf, Mrs. Winters.
And that's all my voice has to say. So. Other board members? Seeing no other board members. Dr. Johnson, I'm sorry. I just wanted to public… I think everything you said was really well said and grateful for, you know, you leading that messaging to Trenton. And I agree with all the other board members' comments. Miss Palmer. I guess I just, though. I agree about how committed and determined are everyone in the district is. I would be a little bit more somber than your assessment that you said, like, even with the budget cuts.
I take the lens from CNI. You know, our role as board members is to do our best in holding the district accountable, but how can we hold? There are challenges that we're working on in terms of, you know, but… and then when you have all these non-personnel cuts, and then on top personnel cuts, everything's. How can we continue the hard work that we're focused on on that side, when we're also then presenting them with, um. with this challenge. I feel like we're handcuffing them, and then expecting suffering. So, I think just to, like, be direct, I… I just think it may impact, you know.
CNI world, just to call it out. I mean, that's just a reality of these budget cuts, and so even as determined and committed and wonderful as the teaching is, and so that's… that's top of mind for me, too. Sure. One thing that I brought out. The day that we received the news that it was what we thought it was going to be, which was the maximum possible cut. is that I feel like we've done a lot of really good work as a board over the past few years coming out of the pandemic. To really work on, focus, target student achievement. And we've seen that bear fruit in so many ways. We just got C. And I just got results of the district benchmarks.
and you know it's clear that the work that's being done is having a true impact on our kids. But that work needs to be supported with resources. That's literally the board's role. It's to provide the resources to support the instructional program that's. effective for our students. How can we do that? in this world where we have no control over the increased costs, and I'm gonna say it again, 90% almost. of our budget is funded by local property taxes, and even if we go to our maximum taxing capacity, which no one wants to do.
It gets us, what, halfway there, Mr. Shim? and the other half has to be cuts. both operational and personnel that will, to agree with Dr. Dreisen, significantly impact. our education here in Cherry Hill. It's not why any of us were elected. Or why we chose to do this. I mean. None of us. So on that very somber note. Um, any other board members before I open it up to public comment?
All right. There will be only one public comment opportunity tonight. Public comment is an opportunity for members of the community to provide input to the Board of Educational educational issues. The board welcomes diverse opinions on relevant matters. However, statements that are abusive, obscene, or which demeanor are defamatory to any individual or group of individuals will not be tolerated, as such comments are disruptive to the orderly operation of this meeting. Speakers wishing to provide the board with information which is not relevant to the district's operations may communicate directly with the superintendent and the board president via email or other alternative means.
I will open public comment now. As by custom, we start in the room. Mr. Schimp, I'm going to ask that you put our 3-minute timer up. We're having a little difficulty with that. I'll just keep it here and we'll alert them. Okay. you got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for putting up the timer. I think it's just easier if it's… it's been… That way people can gauge how much time they have. Is there anyone in the room who would like to give second public comment this evening?
only only public comment this evening. We always welcome you, Miss Jocelyn. Please state your name and municipality. You have 3 minutes. Hill. I had a couple of questions for you and a couple of observations. I appreciate the idea of having someone come to our district, and I would remind you, we have a new commissioner of education and she's from Texas, so it's not homegrown like Mr. Ruppolette.
I suggest you invite her. You also probably learn a lot about her ideas on literacy from that, which we all know that will be helpful. In addition, we have a very recent board member on the State Board of Education representing Camden County. I don't know that he's been here to visit us. And he also was connected with Fair Share Housing, so I think that would be a very fruitful way.
of engaging in additional questions that may be going on in terms of our enrollment forecast going forward. So I mentioned that to you. I had some concerns. Last year there was delay in summer funding. Um, and we were able to cover that and then eventually get money. But this whole effort of the, uh, U.S. Department of Education being reorganized is going to cause some problems.
And even in the direction of the question of, oh, we want to have the state versus federal ownership of educational guidelines. Right now, ESSA is a federal law, and so that still says certain things come there, but this is a horizon question. Um, I see that I see that we also have been working to have our students have new opportunities in terms of internships and ability to earn credits.
I have not heard lately about our Memorandum of understanding with Rutgers, but I will remind you that there are some programs that have been on your back burner that are beneficial to the students, and you should at least have some conversations about how those things are impacted by these proposed cuts. I'm aware that there's been a conversation with the Cherry Hill Township, and I think those things should be pursued.
I wondered whether… I note, as you have retirements and since you tell me the health premiums are a percentage of salary. Those will have an ongoing thing for a couple of years anyway, I'm thinking. Uh, so, um, I wondered if there was an opportunity to seek some state support for the ability of us to be training student teachers, bringing in these new mentoring programs that we have.
So those are some of my thoughts. I thank you always for your attention to detail. Thank you for your comments. Going to the line, the first person it just says iPhone. Please unmute and give us your name and municipality. You have three minutes. Hi, Laurie Neary, Cherry Hill. I've been listening to the presentation and to stick to my stomach is probably an understatement at this stage. A staggering 7.4% increase coupled with the increase coming from the township.
When I have spoken numerous times at board meetings over the last 8 years about the staggering death. tax spiral that we will face you won't have to worry about how we educate these children, because people will not be able to afford to live here. That's not an if. That's a absolute over time. When you crush them with the tax burden, and I truly appreciate that this is not the fault of the board.
Um, and this is a decision that you're left with when we are looking at cost cuts. Before we go into those buildings and start cutting services and supports when we are clearly already struggling in that arena, we need to look in our administration building, because we have grown and developed positions, and I don't see it providing fabulous outcomes or supports. in our buildings. We need to take a hard, uncomfortable look at this time. And, you know, as Ms. Stern spoke about previously with going to Repolette, I was one of the community members. I spoke to the Senate committee hearings. I went down to Glassboro and spoke. There were other community members that went to Repolette, Ms. Friedel, Miss Brombaugh, it was a whole.
team of people that put together that documentation, and it will never be said on my grave that I am afraid or a little shy to speak on something. I'm pretty sure everybody can be really comfortable in that, so I will say it, I will scream it, I will stand on the state steps if need be. that we went from being grossly underfunded to somehow underfunded is offensive, comical, and shocking. And now, after taking on a massive debt burden. They are looking for more. 90% of our budget, we're near private schools, folks, without the benefit.
I don't know why we're still sending money to Trenton. it's a disgrace. They need to do better, they need to do more, they need to stand up for us. This is unacceptable. The community cannot bear it. I'll be honest, I don't know how much longer I can. That might make some people happy, but it won't make my kids happy. If I have to displace them. So we have got to come up with something, and something fast, but coupled with the township taxes, that's 12%, folks.
When the township was looking at 5, and we're looking at 7.4, that's beyond oppressive. It just isn't doable. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Going back to the room. Is there anyone who would like to make second public comment? Hi, I'm Carol Roscoff. Regular Cherry Hill citizen. Hello, everyone. I just want to say two things. The first thing is, and I I go to the fair funding meeting sometimes and I Alana Yaris does a great job, but we've been going there and talking about this for 10 years and nothing changes. Perhaps the conversation needs to be.
When we are going to Trenton, that we need to have the conversation about changing the state constitution, so that schools are no longer funded through property taxes. That's not going to be an easy conversation, but the fair funding isn't an easy conversation either. I… I just want to caution you when you talk about asking teachers to pay more of their health insurance. We are having… we're struggling getting teachers now. If you ask them to pay more of their health insurance, you will never hire another math, science, or technology teacher, because they can go into the private sector and make way more money. They come into teaching because of the health insurance for their kids. So I just like just keep that in the back of your mind. I understand.
But just keep it in the back of your mind. Thank you for your comment. Going to the line. It's Alana Yaris. Alana, please unmute and give us your name and municipality. We can. Alana Yaris, Cherry Hill. You can hear me? Okay, um, Alana Yaris, Cherry Hill, Chair of the Fair Funding Committee, a committee of Zone PTA. Listening to this budget presentation the.
Fair funding committee will be doing Fair Funding Fridays the way they have done in previous years, starting tomorrow and that will be emailed out and posted on our social media. A $6.5 million cut in personnel sounds to me like 100 positions are being cut. I don't want to say that. That is the number, as no numbers were given, but in my mind, it's at least 100 positions, and I think the Fair Funding Committee needs real numbers to be able to share with the state and our legislators to say we have a district of 1,700 employees.
We will have to cut X amount of personnel, which will give us a ratio of 1 to 8 instead of 1 to 7 adult students, so that they understand that full implications of what these tax burdens mean. We had to pass the largest bond in state history because we were chronically underfunded for years and years, and the taxpayers said, well, if the state's not going to help us, we're going to help ourselves. And now the state is still not helping us. Fair funding is not.
organizing to go to Trenton, but we are organizing to email so that every budget committee for the Assembly and Senate will hear from residents in Cherry Hill of real-life experiences and what is happening in Cherry Hill. So, if you've called in to speak tonight about how you can't bear the tax burden. Please share that with the state because fair funding is shifting how they're doing things. We're not going to fight for a fair formula anymore because we know it's unfair. We're going to fight to make real change of how they fund us. They can't say, oh, last year you didn't qualify for equalization aid, and this year you do, but we're going to cut from your transportation and special education because our transportation has gone up and so have our special education students who need help.
So the state is fudging the numbers and we know that. And so fair funding is going to take a hard look at the legislators who don't get back to their constituents and who put out emails that say we're supporting our districts and let us know how we can help. Because I've been the chair of the Fair Funding Committee. for 3 years now, and when the state numbers came out two years ago, the day they came out, I called Melinda Kane and Lou Greenwald's office, and I left a message because they were in Trenton. Well, it's been 3 years, and I'm still waiting to hear back from them, so I've given up on our legislators, and I've stopped electing them.
They still get elected, but they need to do their business and help Cherry Hill instead of what they're doing right now. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Going back to the room. Is there anyone who'd like to make public comment this evening? Anne Horn, Cheriho, New Jersey. Sorry, I have a really bad back today. Um, it's not from St. Paddy's Day either. Anyways, so at least you left. Um, this is just really distressing, as you've all expressed, but I'm going to be blunt.
Lou Greenwald told us at one meeting that he wants to hear from the community. Okay. 2 years ago, the Cherry Hill Council Civic Associations met with. Pam Lampitt in her office. We got a little bit more money that year, but I don't think it was because of that meeting. And also, when you see Lou asking how his districts doing with their 3% increase? I'm not like you. I'm done with this, okay? Politics should not be playing a role in this. Our kids and our communities should be most important.
Alana's right. We haven't heard back from Lou Greenwald, nor Linda Kane, nor James Beach. What are they doing? So I hope you all finally get angry. You could be professional. I don't have to be professional, okay? But you can be professional as you want, but you need to hone… you've done nothing. And I knew Marino Greenwald. And she would have been at Trenton's doorsteps at 7.30 and barged into a committee meeting in order to fight for this community. That's the kind of person she was. So, in all honesty, Lou, you should be ashamed. I'm sorry.
I just want to clarify something, Mr. Schimp. So I figure you're going to be 10 to 15 million dollars in arrears from what I could deem from discussions. I had no idea it was going to be 29 million. The only thing I didn't hear, and I think you would do yourselves a favor as the board is don't wait until Tuesday night to tell us what the cuts are. That's not fair. It's really not fair to the community that supported you with a major bond. Okay, I don't care how many negative emails you get. You get those anyway.
All right. It doesn't matter, because we've been through this before. In 1990, we were successful in getting more money. Because we would show up to Trenton as board members and as community members. I wasn't as involved when the storm was part of the issue. Um, but I take exception with cost for pre-K. Yes. We added classrooms. We didn't get funded 100% for that. Everything in those classrooms is not funded by the grant money. And what really upset me when I looked at the numbers, there's, like, I believe $27 million for pre-K from the state, and our aid is, what, 25?
I mean, where's the priority? It's certainly not for all the students. And I'm going to clear it up at a public forum. I've never been against pre-K. I've been against the way it was planned, and how the rollover into personnel and facilities maintenance is going to affect us long-term in the five-year plan. And I certainly hope we're not building new classrooms for redistricting. Thank you for your comment. Going back to the line. The next caller is Kim Gallagher. Kim, please unmute and give us your name and municipality.
Kim Galler, Gar Cherry Hill. I mean, I don't think anything I'm going to say is different than what other people have already said. You know, I think the only unique thing is that I live in the average assessed house, and every quarter I go on and I pay my tax bill, and I see how much it's gone up, and I jumped on just now to see since 2023, my taxes have gone up $1,500. per year. So, when you talk about that average success house, that's how much. And now you're asking for another, what, you said, $500? So that's $2,000 in 3 years of taxes.
That means… and it just continues to mean more cuts and less for my children, and the children of this community. So I just don't really understand, you know, what the endgame here is. And how we're gonna, you know, continue to… you know, create sustainable schools. Um, I agree with Anne. Um, you know, when I'm listening to this presentation tonight, I'm thinking a couple meetings ago, you guys were talking about building classrooms and hiring more teachers for redistricting. Well, I don't know how you're going to do that. And I hope that that… I hope that you push back on the administration now and say, you got to come back with an actual plan, a bold plan like you guys talked about a prior meeting.
And maybe those preschool classrooms could come in handy with redistricting right about now. Those are eight classrooms you wouldn't have to build because they're already there. We don't have any money to do this stuff. One of your initiatives as a board, which I sat on, was to cut costs when redistricting, and what you allowed the administration to do was come back with a plan that increased costs. And you guys sat there and allowed it. And now look, we're in a position where we just have to continue to cut and cut and cut and cut.
But you're not doing anything else to, like, look for the future in a way that's sustainable. you know, I guess I'm just, like, I'm really frustrated, and I really hope that this is an initiative to to force you guys to really realize that, like, we can't just continue to spend and allow the administration to present to you in a way that's not sustainable for the district in the future. So, I really hope that when you ask for a new plan for redistricting, you do consider those 8 Kilmer classrooms that are for preschool to be used for redistricting, because that could save us millions of dollars. And Ms. Einhorn, you're right.
The state only covered 40% of those classrooms, and if I remember correctly, we had to pay about 5 million out of our capital reserve, which you're claiming doesn't even have enough money to pay the $4 million that the board promised to cover the bond payments. And then you guys now want to push those $4 million payments onto the community. It's just more money, and you're just as Miss Neary said. You're going to push people out of this community. We're not… nobody's going to be able to afford to live here anymore. Thank you.
Thank you for your comment. Going back to the room. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment this evening? Please approach the microphone. Okay, uh, Rick Short, Cherry Hill. Wow. What a what an all-star lineup I'm following. Jeez, past president, another past president, and then the great Kim Gallagher, who said.
You have to hold people accountable in this district, ladies and gentlemen. And I hate to jump on this. It's a very simple question. You know, a couple meetings ago, you guys approved a pedestrian crossing. Do you have any idea where in the town this pedestrian crossing is going? So you just approve something, and you have no idea, and you're going to have a new budget coming up with, you know, the 7-point whatever. Do you have any idea… this is the most simplest, basic question in Cherry Hill. Do you have any idea how many administrators work in this building and work through the 18 schools? It's such a basic question to ask, and then to ask, well, what do other districts, other successful districts across the United States.
You drive by here, there's about 80 cars parked here, so we have about 80 people, maybe 75, I don't know exactly. Now, let's move on to the most important thing. Safety and security of our children, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank Dr. Dean. I always have problems with your last name, sir, I'm sorry. Dr. Dean. for speaking up for safety and security. Ladies and gentlemen. Parkland happened 26 years ago. And we still don't have doors that lock.
Eight years ago, Parkland. occurred, and we still don't have doors that lock. Now, I can't even… I can't even tell you how idiotic what I've seen in the district that happened that it's not going to work. It's it's amazing safety and security should be the most important thing. And you can't… Lock a door! I mean… Mr.
you know, uh… Vice President said before on 429-25, that safety, everyone on this board is concerned about safety. And then Dr. Morton said on 9-26, 24 in a newsletter that he's also concerned about safety. basic is it that you can't lock doors in certain schools? We know that 2 of the two of the district, 2 of the schools in the district, you can lock properly, but you can't lock the rest in certain areas, but I can't say where it is. And then, finally, the old Bullard question, right?
So you have Kilmer with a bad design, you have Johnson with a bad design, you have Rosa with a bad design. East, I think, is going to actually be fixed. And you don't have Bullards in areas that, if a car goes off, it's going to hit a student. Same thing, been saying it now for 10 years. Safety and security should be the number one thing first. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Going back to the line. The next person is the caller with the number ending in 7, 8, 8. It's your turn. Please unmute and give us your name and municipality.
My name is Jeff Podowicz, I live in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. First, um… When you include fiscal year 2025, 26, and 27, our cumulative loss in SFRA formulate will be around $24 million, since the state feels our SFARH should only be. 18 million. That is less than we were at 18 million is less than we received in aid for fiscal year 1990. This is cumulative loss, and so, in other words, it's just gonna get worse. In a letter to the public dated March 13th, 2023, our superintendent.
Basically wrote that the district lost $8.6 million in state funding over a 3-year period. Okay, that is technically correct, because we lost more than 18.6. However, the cumulative loss is $24 million. Over those 3 years. Fiscal year 25, 26, or 27. Especially, um… and really, you need to send a letter out saying the number is not $8.6 million we lost.
Over a 3-year period, but $24 million, alright? In 201 year 2024, we lost $38.5 million. However, the state, you know, we only received 36.4, approximately $2 million less. than we should have received for fiscal year 2025, the state cut our aid, and again, and we went to approximately $29.4 million, or $9 million less than we should have received in 2024. So will you please change that letter that our loss was.
24 million. As for preschool, if we… okay, we're getting $12.6 million, the state says we're gonna get it. For next year, for everyone, alright? If we're gonna have 1,000 students, that's 12,000 a student. It will… it costs over $20,000 a student to educate a child, and a child in the Cherry Hill School District, over $20,000 in preschool has 15 kids, plus a student. And, plus a teacher and an aide. The expense is a lot more than… lot more than $12,000, $13,000, $40,000, or $50,000. We're not getting that money, that amount of money. It is costing us more money. Besides the fact, money from capital reserve was transferred to pay those buildings that was said, we could use those… we could use those classrooms for something else. So no, preschool, you're hiding.
The cost of really what preschool is. It's gotta be at least $20,000 a kid. At least $20,000 a kid, because of the class size limit and the transportation costs. And, um, consider all that. And if it keeps up, when we reach 1,700 kids at preschool, it's gonna break us. Where the heck are we gonna get the money for?
Thank you, Dr. Padowicz. Thank you, Dr. Potowitz. We appreciate you calling. Going back to the room. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment this evening? I don't see any takers going back to the line. The next person on the line is Jen Nadio. It's your turn. Please unmute and give us your name and municipality. We can. Hi, can you hear me? Great, Jen Nadio. And I'm here as a community member. The first question, and Anne asked it, so I'm gonna… I'm gonna ask it again. When will the community be made aware of the potential cuts we should know before you all vote on Tuesday? It wouldn't be fair.
for us to not be able to give our opinions on this before you vote. Um, I need you all to understand, my husband and I went to a rebalancing meeting, and during that time, um, I went up and spoke twice. Both of those times, I explained. Where I live, and how expensive the homes are right now, and the fact that. People are not going to be able to also pay for these taxes. Our homes right now, where I live, are going for $525,000. That is $200 to $300,000 more.
In the last 10 to 20 years. Now we're going to ask them to pay all these taxes. We don't have the money. The people don't have the money, and the district doesn't have the money for rebalancing, they don't have the money. For any of the plans they they are currently looking at, we need to pull back and go in a general pace. I also need you to understand something, and this is coming from me. I have been studying this.
for years. My children are 22, and they started in this district at the age of 3 at Barkley, which is now Malburg. There is no cap. For out-of-district placements in this state. An outed district placement can charge our district any amount of money that they want. That doesn't include transportation and that does not include in some schools. Like, some schools included, some schools don't. Some of our some of us, our parents would pay that.
We need to go to the legislators and get a cap to help pay for those 189 to 200 out-of-district placements. We also, the 25% that Miss Winters said earlier. is just for those students receiving an IEP, please don't forget, you still have a lot of other students who need special education services. 504s, MTSS, and then in my 30 seconds, we need some.
administrators cut from our district, and we could go back to Malburg only for preschool. It's time to get in a better position financially, and we're going to have to cut a lot of the fat. And this is coming from me only. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Nadio, for your comment. Going back to the room. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment?
I don't see any takers. I'm looking online. I do have somebody else. It's Corinne. Please unmute and give us your name and municipality. We can. Hi there! Can you hear me? Okay, perfect. Hi, Corindros, School of Cherry Hill. And tonight I'm speaking as a community member and as a parent. So as you move forward toward a vote next week, I think it's critical that the community clearly understands, um. What is being proposed before any decisions are made, transparency matters, especially when the impact is this significant. Cherry Hill facing continued drastic reductions in state aid and significant increases in health insurance costs. These are serious challenges, and the impact is.
Very substantial, as we all know. Um, we also need to make sure that Trenton is hearing us. These continued reductions in state aid are not sustainable, and our students should not be the ones absorbing the impact. However, the proposed solutions are equally significant and completely out of proportion and unacceptable for our students and our community. That said, I urge the district to be very intentional and thoughtful about where cost saving measures are applied before decisions begin to impact classroom services and student supports. I urge the district to fully explore operational efficiencies and internal adjustments.
That do not directly affect students. This should not be… this should include taking a thoughtful look at redistricting and ensuring that any changes meaningfully improve efficiency and result in real cost savings for the district. We cannot balance this budget on the backs of our teachers and support staff. They are essential. They are already stretched, and we have a large and diverse student population with growing needs. Our students require and deserve adequate staffing to support their learning and well-being. If reductions are necessary, the focus needs to be on administrative structures and efficiencies, not the people working directly with the students every day.
I asked the district to have a thoughtful look at its administrative structure if roles can be managed concurrently, it's fair to ask whether we are structured in the most efficient way. I also want to speak specifically about special education, as this is an area where decisions carry significant and lasting impact. I urge the district to continue working closely with case managers, child study teams, and families to ensure that there are guardrails so that services in a student's IEP are fully implemented, not reduced or informally adjusted over time. They must be… there must be some accountability to ensure students receive the supports they're entitled to as written.
I also want to acknowledge how difficult it is to hear about potential tax increases. Our community already supports our schools in a very real way through our property taxes and voter approved bonds. The school levy. The school tax levy is a mechanism that directly increases what residents are asked to contribute each year. And a proposed 7.4% increase is significant for families simply not sustainable. So there must be a continued commitment to exploring every possible avenue so not to burden taxpayers. Thank you so much for your time tonight.
Thank you for your comment. Going back to the room. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? I don't see anybody in the room going back online. There is another caller. It's Dr. Yona Yaris. Please unmute and give us your name and municipality. Dr. Yoni Yaris, Cherry Hill. Um, one is, I first off, thank you so much, Mr. Shimp. This is definitely not the fun budget to have in your first go round for us, and I appreciate the detail that went into it and the zero sum approach.
Um, I want to pose this question. I think this is a question that we need to be asking at the state level, is why is my child, our children and child's education worth less to the state than children from elsewhere? Because that's what it seems to be every year. Um, and I can say this, that where I work. My district is getting the full 6%, which means the state values the education of my students where I work more than they potentially value the education of my own children. And I think that is a major challenge that we need to be approaching and thinking about, that why are we valuing education differently based on where a child lives?
I also agree that the stepping point, we are going to be taxing people out of Cherry Hill. You know, are you seeing everyone's raised a lot of concerns about the economics and things, but we are reaching at a point where we have out-taxed the tax base. Um, and I also know when you don't have the revenue to cover the expenses, it creates very challenging situations. There is nothing easy about this. Are we… the ones I say we looked at moving ourselves out of the state health benefit plan. I know some municipalities and elsewhere, from what I've read, vaguely have started to do that. Could that… incur some more savings for us.
a benefit plan, because there seems to be some challenges there. Um, and I know there's been plenty of legislation about helping costs there, but that seems to have just stalled. As well, so I think we just have to really put pressure on it and really work to unite with other districts, because it's not just a Cherry Hill problem. Um, as other districts as well, and if we really want to make sure that our children are good, I mean, I'm here, sorry, I was maybe till 2043, um, and it's just very challenging. So I appreciate the time all of you are doing, but hopefully we can come a way that will not be 7… over 7%.
Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to make public comment this evening? We still don't see any takers looking back online. Is there anyone online who would like to make public comment this evening? Just going to give it a minute. I don't see anybody in the room. I don't see anybody online. I'm going to close public comment for tonight and move to Superintendent comments. Thank you, Miss Winters. Just a couple of comments and clarification for me as well. First and foremost, thank you to everyone who's come out, and thank you to everyone who shared your comments. Definitely appreciate the candor and appreciate, you know, the honesty in which everyone has communicated.
We absolutely recognize the magnitude of the moment and recognize the challenges that are before us. To Dr. Yaris' point, I have been in close communication with a consortium of local superintendents who are also facing massive budget shortfalls. Uh, many of those districts tapped into a tax levy incentive aid package last year, and raised their taxes upwards of 20%, 25%, which is totally unreasonable, and something our board actually did not want to do last year, and if you recall, that's one of the reasons why we.
reorganized our middle-level program. But the truth is, in the last 3 years, the district has lost $8.6 million and pure dollars year over year to elevate miss… Mrs. Stern's point, during that time that Dr. Rapalette visited the district, it seemed like the district had a couple years of positive increases in state aid. So perhaps that is a strategy for us to connect with our commissioner.
Who actually is responsible for the distribution of funds. The formula is clearly broken. The formula provides winners and losers, and what we're being told is that local incomes and local home values are up in Cherry Hill, and consequently. Our taxpayers can bear more brunt of the burden for the schools. It's very challenging, very challenging for our district, very challenging for our taxpayers, and very challenging for many residents across the state who are facing.
a similar circumstance. Just one clarification about enrollment balancing and the recommendation that we made. The recommendation was based upon where our increases were were forecasted to come from, and the funds that we targeted using. were funds from our interest earnings from the bonds. So using those interest earnings from the bond are separate from the general budget and would not impact the tax rate at all. I thought we were clear about expressing that, but perhaps I need to go back and take a look at.
Um, our talking points, but just to put it out there, the funds that we were. targeting to use were from the bond interest earnings, and they would not accrue any tax burden on the community. With that being said, thank you to the board for your conversation, for the ongoing discussion. We will continue that conversation. Thank you, Mr. Schemp as well for your diligence, your oversight, and for providing the fresh eyes. You know, you've been.
Communicating the need for us to level set and to balance the ship, so to speak, for many, many months now. And I think it's very appropriate that we do that. The reality is that we need to bring our operating costs down to where our revenue is. It's pretty clear where our revenue is in moving forward, and that's what we'll do. That's what we absolutely have proposed. With that, I'll say, have a great night, everyone. Thank you again for your comments. Please come out on Tuesday and let your voices be heard as well.
Thank you, Dr. Morton, and thank you to all the board members and community members who came out for this discussion tonight. We appreciate it. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Do I have a second? Miss Manzano, all board members in favor? Have a goodIt's