2014 Budget Results Report

8/12/2019 2014 Budget Results Report

1/10

2014 School DistrictBudget Vote Results

June 2014


2/10

For use of NYSASBO data or analyses,please use the following source citation:

SOURCE: New York State Association of School Business Ofcials,Albany, NY 12207, [date of release], www.nysasbo.org

Contact: Michael J. Borges, Executive Director The New York State Association of School Business Ofcials (NYSASBO)

7 Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207 | www.nysasbo.org | 518-434-2281


3/10

3

7 Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207 | 518-434-2281 | www.nysasbo.org

On May 20, 2014, communities at most school districts voted on budgets proposed by their boards of education.NYSASBO analyzed the budget vote results of 676 school districts. The Big 5 city school districts do not participatein budget votes by law, since their budgets are part of their city budgets. Results are presented concerning passrates and voter turnout, overriding New Yorks Tax Cap, budget defeats and budget impacts for different categoriesof school districts.

Pass Rates and Voter TurnoutA record 98 percent of budgets passed at this rst opportunity (see Figure 1). Voters in only 12 school districts failedto pass their budgets (see Figure 2). School districts whose budgets failed to pass have the option of adopting acontingency budget or presenting the same or different budget to the voters for a second vote on June 17, 2014.Figure 1 shows a gradual increase in the percent of budgets that have been approved over the past decade.Approval rates are somewhat higher since the passage of New Yorks Tax Cap, rst implemented in 2012, showingbroad voter approval of school district efforts to contain spending and taxes.

Budget Vote Results for Defeated School District Budgets

School District Yes Votes No Votes Total Approval RequiredDover UFSD 283 271 554 51.1% 60%Addison CSD 202 211 413 48.9% 50%Northville CSD 255 179 434 58.8% 60%Rome City SD 798 1740 2538 31.4% 50%West Irondequoit CSD 1631 1284 2915 56.0% 60%Brookeld CSD 185 124 309 59.9% 60%

Tuxedo UFSD 177 156 333 53.2% 60%Clifton-Fine CSD 164 234 398 41.2% 50%Bridgehampton UFSD 134 113 247 54.3% 60%Sayville UFSD 1749 2257 4006 43.7% 60%West Babylon UFSD 1432 1335 2767 51.8% 60%Minerva CSD 181 142 323 56.0% 60%

Although pass rates are increasing, Figure 3 shows the number of voters has declined, a phenomenon which hasonly increased subsequent to the implementation of the Tax Cap in 2012.

2014 School District Budget Vote Results

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Percent Passed 85% 83% 89% 95% 92% 97% 92% 93% 96% 95% 98%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

First Budget Vote Passing Rate

Caps Added

Figure 1

Figure 2


4/10

4

The New York State Association of School Business Ofcials | Advancing the Business of Education

Overriding the Tax CapTwenty-three districts (three percent) proposed to override the maximum allowable levy limit established by New

Yorks Property Tax Cap. Figure 4 shows the number of school districts seeking to override the Tax Cap since 2012is small and declining.

Budget DefeatsWhat was the likelihood of a budget failing, whether a district overrode the Tax Cap or not? Figures 5 and 6 showthe percent of budget defeats for districts seeking to override the Tax Cap (Figure 5) or not (Figure 6). We foundthat a budget is much more likely to fail if the district proposes to override the Tax Cap than if it proposes to staywithin it. Districts that stayed within the Tax Cap had almost no failed budgets, while districts that sought to override

tended to have budget defeats. Of the nine failed budgets that attempted to override, eight of them obtained asimple majority or over 50 percent, and would have passed if not for the Tax Caps requirement for a supermajorityvote of 60 percent.

Conversely the information presented in Figure 5 can be viewed in terms of the percent of the approval of budgetsthat sought to override the Tax Cap. This year, voters approved 61 percent of budgets that sought to override theTax Cap. This occurred despite the fact that taxpayers in these communities will not be eligible for Tax Freeze creditchecks, which the law species will only be provided for jurisdictions with Tax Cap compliant budgets. This may bedue to the lower level of the Tax Cap, an allowable levy growth factor of 1.46 percent due to low ination last year,and is a credit to school districts engaging their communities in thoughtful debates about the need to supporteducation. See Figure 7.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Voted No 394,226 339,912 271,516 244,566 191,097

Voted Yes 587,455 537,490 532,488 459,433 456,238

Total Votes 981,681 877,402 804,004 703,999 647,335

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

M i l l i o n s

Voter Turnout

Caps Added

Figure 3

2012 2013 2014Tax Cap Overrides 53 28 23

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of Tax Cap OverridesFigure 4


5/10

5


We examined voter approval rates for school districts that chose to override the Tax Cap or stay within it. Figure 8shows that voter approval was lower for those school districts that sought to override the Tax Cap. An average of73 percent of voters approved budgets that stayed within the Tax Cap while only an average of 64 percent of votersapproved budgets that sought to override the Tax Cap.

2012 2013 2014

Defeated Overrides 36% 75% 39%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Failed Budgets - Tax Cap OverridesFigure 5

2012 2013 2014

Defeated Non-Overrides 0.8% 1.7% 0.5%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Failed Budgets - Within the Tax CapFigure 6

2012 2013 2014Approved Budgets 64% 25% 61%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Approved Budgets - Tax Cap OverridesFigure 7


6/10

6


Because of the lower Tax Cap this year that resulted from the low level of ination experience last year, we foundthat school districts tended to propose levies that were very close to their levy limits. This year 46 percent of schooldistricts compared to 21 percent last year, proposed tax levies that were up to or close to their levy limits calculatedunder the Tax Cap legislation.

Contingent BudgetsSince the Tax Cap was in place in 2012, we found that school districts were much less likely to go to a contingencybudget. With the Tax Cap legislation, the rules for contingency budgets also changed. Before the Tax Cap, schooldistricts with defeated budgets were subject to a spending cap of four percent or 120 percent of the CPI, whicheverwas less. After the Tax Cap, school districts with defeated budgets were subject to a levy cap equal to the levy fromthe year before, that is, no increase in levy.

Figure 9 shows that in the past four years most budget revotes passed. It also shows that before the Tax Cap, anumber of school districts went directly to a contingent budget, foregoing the second vote, and resulting in aconsiderable number of school districts operating under a contingency budget. With the advent of the Tax Cap,

contingent budgets have almost disappeared. School districts are doing whatever they can to get voter approval.Results for 2014 will be available following the second budget vote on June 17, 2014.

Figure 10 shows a map of failed budget votes for 2014-15. Of the 12 budgets that failed, nine were in school districtsthat sought to override the Tax Cap. The map shows these budget defeats were spread geographically around thestate.

2012 2013 2014Override Approval 61% 57% 64%Non-Override Approval 71% 70% 73%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Average Voter Approval RatingFigure 8

2010 2011 2012 2013Direct to Contingent 20 22 0 1Defeated Revote 4 9 2 2Passed Revote 29 14 22 29Total Contingent 24 31 2 3

5101520253035

Second Budget Vote Results

Caps Added

Figure 9


7/10

7


Budget Impacts by School District TypeWe assessed whether the need and resource capacity of school districts had an impact on attempts to overridethe Tax Cap or budget defeats. We found that override attempts increased for school districts with lower need andgreater resources (see Figure 11).

2014-15 School Budget Vote Results

LegendBudget

Passed

Defeated

Override Passed

Override Defeated

N/A

Figure 10

Percent of CategoryHigh Need Urban/Suburban 2%High Need Rural 1%Average Need 4%Low Need 6%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%

Tax Cap Overrides for Categories of School DistrictsFigure 11


8/10

8


Examining the incidence of budget defeats for different need and resource categories of school districts did notreveal a signicant pattern. Average Need school districts had slightly fewer budget defeats and Low Need schooldistricts had slightly more but the differences were small. See Figure 12.

ConclusionThis year, voters made a statement in support of education by approving budgets at record levels. For the smallminority of school districts that sought to override the Tax Cap, requiring supermajority approval of 60 percent ormore of voters, six out of ten school budgets passed. While the Tax Cap is seeking to contain school spending andtax increases, voter condence in schools appears to be high.

Percent of CategoryHigh Need Urban/Suburban 2.1%High Need Rural 1.9%Average Need 1.5%Low Need 2.3%

0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%

2.5%

Defeated Budgets for Categories of School DistrictsFigure 12


9/10

9


AppendixBudget Vote Results for School Districts that Sought to Override the Tax Cap

School District Vote Yes Vote No Total Approval ResultBridgehampton UFSD 134 113 247 54.3% DefeatedBrighton CSD 1224 462 1686 72.6% PassedBrookeld CSD 185 124 309 59.9% DefeatedDover UFSD 283 271 554 51.1% DefeatedEast Hampton UFSD 492 184 676 72.8% PassedGeneral Brown CSD 1130 376 1506 75.0% PassedHolland CSD 511 298 809 63.2% PassedIthaca City SD 3461 2104 5565 62.2% PassedJasper-Troupsburg CSD 127 80 207 61.4% PassedKiryas Joel UFSD 184 16 200 92.0% PassedLong Lake CSD 171 102 273 62.6% PassedMenands UFSD 101 50 151 66.9% PassedMillbrook CSD 333 149 482 69.1% PassedMinerva CSD 181 142 323 56.0% DefeatedNorth Warren CSD 313 135 448 69.9% PassedNortheast CSD 242 85 327 74.0% PassedNorthville CSD 255 179 434 58.8% DefeatedSayville UFSD 1749 2257 4006 43.7% DefeatedScotia-Glenville CSD 1254 475 1729 72.5% PassedTuxedo UFSD 177 156 333 53.2% Defeated Valley CSD 2193 1225 3418 64.2% PassedWest Babylon UFSD 1432 1335 2767 51.8% DefeatedWest Irondequoit CSD 1631 1284 2915 56.0% Defeated

Data SourcesThe data summarized in this report was from the New York State Education Departments Ofce of EducationalManagement Services (http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/votingresults/). NYSASBO contacted a number ofschool districts to conrm results and changed NYSEDs data in some instances.

AcknowledgmentsThis report was written by NYSASBO staff members Deborah H. Cunningham, Director of Education and Researchwith analytical assistance from Jason Fiorini, Special Projects Coordinator.


10/10

A publication of the New York State Association of School Business Ofcials.

Copyright 2014 NYSASBO

Contact:Michael J. Borges, Executive Director

The New York State Association of School Business Ofcials (NYSASBO)7 Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207 | www.nysasbo.org | 518-434-2281

Documents

2014 Budget Results Report