Advertise with us | Subscribe

Your Hometown Newspaper Since 1854

print article Print     e-mail article E-mail
Published March 27, 2009, 01:07 AM

Letter: Offers ideas for school officer

Thanks for last week’s “Our View” editorial — it makes some excellent points, but is incorrect in some ways. I would like to clarify a few things.

By: Lori Bernard, Hudson, Hudson Star-Observer

Dear Editor,

Thanks for last week’s “Our View” editorial — it makes some excellent points, but is incorrect in some ways. I would like to clarify a few things.

The school’s most recent contract was “50/50” only for 10 months of the year. Basically, the school district spread only five months of pay across the school district, of which the city taxpayers paid for 41 percent. The city taxpayers only then paid for the remaining seven months. In total, city residents payed for 75.3 percent of that officer’s annual time.

The city, by asking for 75 percent of the officers pay and benefits, is simply requesting that the school district take costs for the entire school year (nine months) and spread them across the entire district (city, town, North Hudson, Troy and St. Joseph). The city residents of course would pay their 41 percent share of that 75 percent, plus the full 25 percent of the officer during summer months. This financial arrangement is simple, logical and fair.

Your suggestion of a simple “60/40” split (if based on annual costs) results in the following:

  • The school spreads only 60 percent (7.2 months) across the entire school district;

  • The city residents pay 41 percent of that 60 percent (or 24.6 percent of annual costs);

  • Plus city residents only pay the remaining 1.8 months of the school year (17 percent);

  • Plus city residents pay the 25 percent of the summer months.

  • In total, city residents pay 67 percent of the annual costs

    If you are referring to a 60/40 split for the school year, the city’s offer of 75/25 annual split is essentially the same thing, since the city represents 41 percent of the district.

    I believe that our 75/25 annual split is important because it reflects actual usage by the school vs. the city and it reflects actual percentages of students from each municipality. It is not accurate to say it doesn’t matter whose ledger it comes from. Past arrangements show city taxpayers (not someone’s ledger) getting the short end of the stick.

    City residents have paid higher city taxes, and other school district residents have not paid their share of school taxes for this position.

    Your article did not clearly state if you are basing 60/40 on annual costs or on school year costs. The difference is quite significant and perhaps should be clarified

    We all want to see the position retained but funded fairly.

    Lori Bernard, Hudson

    City council member

    Tags: , , , , , 

    More from around the web