Scarsdale 10583

A new study from Money Magazine has rated Scarsdale as the town with the 3rd highest per capita income in the country (measured by residents tax returns) and the highest per capita income in the NY area. That means per capita income here is higher than Greenwich, Darien, Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and many other affluent areas.

It is amazing how many people in this town are crying poor over their taxes. However, they aren't really poor. People are upset b/c for example their taxes went from $45K to $60K over the past ten years. Did you expect taxes to go down when you bought your house? Did you not budget for tax increases? Did you expect the bubble to go on forever and that your Wall Street bonus would always go up?

The reality is that if your taxes are $60K than your house is worth close to $3MM. If your house is that expensive and you can't afford to pay the taxes then maybe it is time to downsize. There are plenty of $2MM homes in town that will get you back to your old tax bill and will still afford you plenty of living space.

The Bronxville experience is one of a shift from a balanced community, including a healthy percentage of residents with no kids in the district to one dominated by school age families. So what does that do to a community. For one thing, the school budget spirals upwards as the number of schoolchildren increases. The death spiral continues as older residents can no longer afford the increased tax burden. Our community still is reasonably balanced with about 50 percent of residents having no schoolchildren. Bronxville now has 80 percent of households with schoolchildren and higher taxes as a percentage of assessed value to boot. Moreover, our most involved community members are typically older with no kids at home to deal with. We should do what we can to keep them in town.

Hey Laughing At You - Just because many people decide to move out of town after their kids graduate from the school system doesn't mean we are in a death spiral. The reality is that Scarsdale is and always has been a community that has been largely revolved around the school system and therefore has had high taxes. You think people moving out of town b/c their kids are out of school is new? I know of several people that moved from Scarsdale to White Plains after their kids graduated from high school in the early 1960's. That is not something new and is not a travesty. That is the reality of towns with leading school systems. The majority of the residents will have school aged children b/c those are the people that are willing to pay a premium in real estate costs to have the best schools. This has happened for years to places like Scarsdale, Chappaqua and Roslyn in New York, as well as suburbs of other cities like Weston, MA, Potomic, MD and Highland Park, Ill. And if they lived here for many years while their kids went through school they likely will make a very pretty penny on their house due to the strong real estate values that our schools create.

Laughing at You: According to the 2010 Census, the population in Bronxville had changed by -3.4% from 2000 Census numbers. That's hardly "an exodus" due to high taxes, especially when you consider that the census also showed that Bronxville had 8% more children living in Bronxville under the age of 18 than the state average. Another theory (because that's all anyone can offer, including yourself - a theory) is that the reason the population shrunk in the past decade is because they went to college, along with 98.6% percent of all Bronxville graduates (census data again).

I notice you didn't answer Jeff B's questions regarding seeking the support of empty nesters for your children's education? I wonder why that is?

Finally, Laughing at You, I don't think our board of education is proposing a budget yet that includes money for new construction, do you? Pointing out what another district does with a bill that includes money for new construction seems irrelevant to me.

Take heed Scarsdale Schools Administration and Board of Education. Voters in Rye yesterday soundly rejected a proposed $20 million bond that would have provided for new science labs, renovations to lockers and other facilities and 16 new classrooms. The Board had proposed the bond to alleviate purportedly overcrowded classrooms and to upgrade the science labs which date from the 1960s and 70s. As useful as such upgrades may be, Rye voters intelligently responded by just saying "No" to more taxes. We simply cannot add to our school property tax burden in Scarsdale, and if the Administration and Board propose a budget that exceeds the tax cap, a strong organized opposition will emerge to try to defeat the budget. The line in the sand has been drawn. Happy Holidays.

"Laughing at You," your "squealing like a stuck pig," analogy is really thoughtful. Nice of you to compare paid professionals who work hard on behalf of the community and our kids to "stuck pigs." You're a class, anonymous act. .

Scarsdale public schools are a taxpayer funded public school system. Admission is based upon legal residency, not on an application, income level nor legacy status. What we dispute is the lack of transparency of an ongoing perq of free tuition to out-of-district employees' children which clearly has some measurable benefit to the employee and cost to taxpayers and their children. Simply put, the school district and Board of Education must be held fiscally accountable to a taxpayer funded public school system. We are not the only school district to grapple with this issue, however, we are the only one which has such a high number of out-of-district students with no attempt to end or change this inappropriate drain on our resources. The growth of the school budget has been astronomical over the last 10 years and is not sustainable. Change needs to happen, and the tax cap necessitates immediate action. It's about time.

Jeff B. To sate your curiosity, I have two children currently in the Scarsdale schools and they will be there for several more years. I believe the District has been run in a fiscally irresponsible manner for many years. The tax cap finally is exerting some discipline and the Administration is squealing like a stuck pig.

Jeff B. I'm happy to satisfy your curiosity. I presently have two children in the Scarsdale school system and they will be there for several years still. As an economist, I see an out-of-control school budget which ultimately will devastate any semblance of a balanced community in Scarsdale. We are in a "death spiral" and we will eventually push out of town everyone without school age children. This is not what I want to see happening in Scarsdale. It is already happening in Bronxville. Cheers.

Just out of curiousity, "laughing at you", did you once have kids in the school system? Did you want the support of empty nesters back then? Did you get it? Were you happy to have it?

This is a public school supported by taxpayers fifty percent of whom don't have kids in the school. What don't you get. We are not a private school and shouldn't have to pay like we are.

How is it that Scarsdale residents don't get that their children are receiving a private school education for a public school price? You have 2-3 kids in school and your property taxes cover an exemplary, nationally-respected education with almost guaranteed success in life and a passion for learning. Try paying 30-40K per year, PER CHILD to send them to a private school for their K-12 education.

Just a few other things I feel compelled to say in response to whoever this "Quaker ridge bobby" is.
Did you not read the article that these posts are attached to? The marginal costs of educating the faculty staff is addressed there, and once again, pegged at essentially zero. So no, it can't be half a million dollars.

You say "we are all entitled to our own opinion". Yes, of course. But just so you know, when I form opinions and I am confronted with new facts I hadn't considered, or evidence that I had overlooked, or persuasive reasoning that is contrary to my previously held views, I might CHANGE my opinion. If you have an opinion that can never be changed, you might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes.

An excellent point was brought up by "and another thing." If we went to good schools and are therefor legacies at that school, then our children who are more likely to get into our alma mater are indeed "taking the spot" of somebody else who wasn't a legacy.

Look, our taxes are very high. We all want the Board to show some fiscal responsibility. But insisting that staff kids pay to attend the schools their parents work at while some of us complain about tax levies that are approximately 40-60% of the average scarsdale teacher's salary seems awfully petty to me.

And to Quaker Ridge Bobby: I don't know what kind of experience your children have had, but my two children have been positively changed - often dramatically so - by the truly gifted teachers they have had the pleasure of of being in class with while in Scarsdale. While I agree with you that our willingness to pay these taxes and our dedication towards educating our children are what help to make this community one of the best school systems in the country, you're leaving out an equally important and valued commodity - our teachers.

Quaker Ridge Bobby, If the board budgets for something and then the activity doesn't happen, the money is of course not spent. So if the district budgeted for a softball team and the team wasn't formed, it's not like the money is stolen or put in an employee Christmas fund! No one can predict needs with perfect accuracy the activities or teams that will need to be formed based on demand. In this case the $3000 would pay for something else budgeted and at the end of the year, if there was $3000 or more in surplus, it would go into the undesignated fund balance to be used at some point in the future or for future tax relief.

Just crunched these numbers: UGGS boots--so very popular among our girls. At Zappos they average around $125 a pair. If every girl in the district were to buy a pair at that price (forget the tax), total expenditures on them would be around $275,000. Don't know what they boys' equivalent would be, but whatever it is, its cost, added to the cost of the UGGS, would equal $550,000. In fact, if everyone of us gave up a pair of shoes or boots at that price, we'd save a collective $2,125,000. Where are our priorities?!!!!

One other thing: Many of us went to great colleges. As legacies, our kids have a leg up on admission to those schools, and many of them (us) take advantage of it, which means they "take the spot" of another, more qualified applicant. I mean, come on. Really. Why all this whining?

And how about this: Times are tough. Okay, teachers have to suck it up--but then we pay them extra-contractual bonuses during great economic times. Hmm. It's never happened and never will.

We need to focus on the issue, the school budget, how much more we can, cannot, should or should not pay.

First, we all need to realize that it is not the school system that allows our children to receive a good education, but rather we the parents that support our children's education by us willing to pay already high taxes. However, once they leave the buildings we parents are the ones who really make Scarsdale's system look so good. We are virtually all college educated or more, we care about how well our children learn, we teach our children the importance of educating themselves and most importantly many of us supplement our children's public education with private tutoring. Frankly the Board needs to understand how lucky they are to have us so they can brag about Scarsdale's "system".

First, as i previously wrote, everyone needs to contact our elected State officials and let them know unless they fund the unfunded mandates without raising our State taxes they will not be re elected and therefore fired. We have strength in numbers and our vote.

Second, we do pay alot of school taxes. The Board must hear us that they need to work to give us a budget that preserves a quality education without raising out taxes too much higher. We never should have logic that everyone can afford anything or they would not live in this community. Tough decisions need to be made just as we make in our homes, businesses and the jobs we work at.

Third, not all of our teachers are good teachers. As in any large group there are those that excel, those that do a good job, and those that underperform. Paying the most does not guarantee success. Look at the Knicks, Rangers, our local sports teams that perennnially have the highest payrolls but do not win the championships every year.

Fourth, there is a cost of letting 100 students come here for free. It may not be 1 mil, but could it be 500K? That is a lot of money to ignore. The Board should scrutinize every item on the budget and find ways to eliminate waste. For example, we have budgeted for a Freshman Softball Team that we have not had for many years. It is not a lot of money but how many other $3000 items do not need to be there? I bet a lot.

Laslty this should not be a Jeff Blatt versus whoever or whoever versus Jeff Blatt blog. We all are entitled to our opinions and we should all be respectful of them. We should use our words and energy in a positive way.

The expressions of discontent about Scarsdale's educating children of non-resident employees miss the point. They talk about "entitlements," but let's face it: the fact that we can live here means we're incredibly entitled ourselves. Economic times aren't what they were, but compared to the rest of the country--and even many parts of the county--we're all doing quite well, indeed, residents and teachers alike. Just look at the parking lots at the High School, teachers' and students' alike.

Recently, the the governor and Commissioner of Education have been talking about merging Westchester's school districts--pooling their school tax dollars and then allocating them on a per-pupil basis. It's stupid idea, but if it were to gain any traction, I bet we'd fight like crazy to keep the current system that gives our kids a great education and keeps our property values high--and I bet we'd team up with the teachers and fight side-by-side with them. If the proposal were to become reality, this talk of entitlements would become moot, because maybe then, teachers could afford to live here, and maybe a lot of us would choose not to.

We're squabbling, my friends; it's a sort of petty class warfare that misses the point, and it can only hurt us. Let's be smart--maintain our core values, cut judiciously, and thank God for what we have.

I didn't realize there were so many economically stressed hedge fund managers and investment bankers these days. If only our economically stressed residents could win the lottery like those guys in Greenwich.

Seriously, I find it ironic when people that drive expensive european cars, belong to country clubs and go to the Four Seasons for vacation claim economic hardship. Life is about choices and heavan forbid if you might need to downgrade from 7 series BMW to the 5 series this year or cancel your membership to Winged Foot. That is not economic hardship.

I drive an american car and don't go on expensive vacations. I thought ahead when I bought my house and didn't buy too big, assuming that taxes would inevitably go up. I saved my money earlier this decade rather than assuming the market would always go up. Those that chose to over-buy and over-spend during the bubble are paying for it now, but that is their problem. Your inability to pay your property taxes is your problem. Don't ruin our schools b/c you bought too big or can't control your spending.

Wow, by reading some of these posts one would think that the administration and school board is made up of Kruschev's propaganda machine. People are really being ruthless to a small group that volunteer hundreds of hours a week for our community. No need to wonder why it is so hard to get people to volunteer for these positions around here. It truly is a thankless job with lots of anonymous "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" coming in and questioning every little thing they say.

Why don't people try to be productive rather than combative.

While Mr. Blatt professes to be disturbed by many of the posts on the school budget issue, he seems to be out of touch with the feelings of many economically stressed taxpayers in the district. The past is no longer prologue with respect to assured school budget passage -- particularly with the supermajority vote now required for budgets in excess of the tax cap. The Administration's plan plainly is to blow through the tax cap. So let's say they propose a budget requiring a tax levy increase of 4%. Will your school tax bill next year increase by just 4%? Because of the continuing decline in the assessed values of properties in Scarsdale resulting from successful tax challenges (there were about 550 challenges this year and about 750 last year and 90% result in a reduction), the increase in your school tax bill will likely be far greater than 4%. For instance, the current school budget tax levy was 2.75% higher than the previous year's, but the school tax rate increase for Scarsdale residents was a far higher 4.81%. In fact, the average annual school tax rate increase for Scarsdale since 2000/2001 has been 5.80% and for residents of the Mamaroneck strip, it has been 6.81%. My guess is that the Administration will propose a budget which will increase our school property taxes by at least 6% next year. This, of course, is in an economic environment with virtually 0% inflation, 0% interest rates on savings, historic unemployment and underemployment (which affects many Scarsdalians), and dramatically depressed real estate values. I don't think the taxpayers of this District are going to enthusiastically embrace such a budget, and I believe a supermajority will be difficult to attain. That is why people on this board are addressing perks such as free tuition to out-of-district staff children that we can no longer afford. And that is why it is important to challenge baseless assertions like Mr. Blatt's contention that the cost of educating 104 out-of-district non-tuition paying students (in 2011-12) is 1 cent.

And have you heard that they scrub the floors of the classrooms that the janitor's kids use on their hands and knees, while the rest of the classrooms just get the plain old mop treatment?

Honestly, do you people realize how you sound here?

Jeff, I know that most of these people would disagree with you (and the Board) if you said 2+2=4, and furthermore point out how it negatively affects their children, but there are people who appreciate your knowledgeable and thoughtful input here. Thanks!

I'm not sure where to begin. I could comment on so many things here, almost all deeply disturbing. Again, as I have said before:

1) There is a post here that said that the board extended the teachers' contract for "years" in exchange for a $2 million giveback. In fact, it was extended for one year. Not years. The $2 million giveback provided immediate tax relief. Additionally, the $2 million was roughly equivalent to the raise in the additional year that was added to the contract. Said another way, the teacher giveback was equivalent to the raise in the extra year, so the extra year was essentially at a zero raise. As to layoffs, as I have also said before, the board's judgement was that we gave nothing here, because the majority of citizens didn't want layoffs, so if we were going to exercise the will of the people, we would not have gone with layoffs anyway. That most citizens supported this view is evident by the overwhelming passage of the budget. And if those facts are not enough, here's two other facts for anyone willing to consider facts: a) the staff size has shrunk over time by (I believe) over 10 positions due to teachers retiring and not being replaced and b) though the board agreed to no general layoffs, staff could be eliminated if program was cut.

2) As to the marginal cost argument regarding staff children in our schools, let's try it another way. If the children were no longer allowed in, by how much money could we reduce the budget? Answer: somewhere between $.01 cent and only slightly less meaningless.

3) As to faculty paying $10,000 per kid, some writers assume we would raise about $1 million dollars doing this. That of course assumes that all faculty agree to pay the money. That would not happen, because they simply could not afford it. $10,000 net is probably $17,000 or so of gross income.

4) The relevant fact is how many districts offer the policy, not how many kids end up in the district. One arguement as to why so many kids are here is that the education is amazing, so faculty take the district up on the perq. In other districts, faculty avail themself of the opportunity at a lower rate, most likely because there isn't that much differentiation between the district they work in and the district they live in. The fact that so many faculty avail themself of this opportunity speaks volumes about the quality of the education here, something residents should be proud of.

4) I really am quite nauseated by the "my kid didn't get into civ ed (or whatever) due to the faculty's kid" argument. Extend the logic a bit. Did you know that non residents play in our parks.? Chase them out! That the poor often pay lower marginal taxes than the wealthy even though I, a wealthy man, work just as hard for my dollar as the poor? That doesn't seem right! Etc. Etc. Etc. When I was on the board, someone once said to me "even our janitors get to send their kids to school here?" I was so floored that for once, I couldn't speak but finally I mustered "do you hear yourself?" The arguments on the board remind me of that conversation several years ago.

Our kids live in a world where they need to deal with disappointment, which comes in all sorts of forms. They have plenty of privileges. If they get shut out of a class due to a slot going to a kid whose family doesn't live in town, they need to shrug it off and move on, and they need parents who are better than those who essentially argue that their child deserves slots over other kids based on their tax bill. Guess what people, your kids won't get into some classes in college either where class slots will go to scholorship students by the luck of the draw, just like in Scarsdale. A system t that reserved the most coveted slots for the children of privilege would set a really, really poor example for our children. The district motto is "non-sibi." If you don't know what that means, look it up.

Everyone is talking about the tax cap, cutting programs, larger classes. Here is a simple fact. The chlidren that are attending our schools, and do not live in the district, or have parents employed by the district, are using our resources unjustly. Who gives the board of Ed the right to decide for us where our charitable donations are going to go? There is a problem with these children being in our classrooms. That is one extra student that requires attention. There is a problem with these kids being on our sports teams. And i am not talking about them taking a spot away from a Scarsdale resident. There is an insurance cost, and plenty of other costs associated with being on a team. Where do we think that money comes from? I have to believe that the majority of Scarsdale residents are not aware that this is going on. Let us demand that the school board give us answers! Don't we deseve an explanation? It is our tax dollars, and any cut is going to have an impact on our children. I for one, moved here so that my children could attend the Scarsdale Schools. If I knew that I could have lived in another district and use the schools anyway, I could have saved a lot of money.

The district and the school board are award of several students who attend school in this district and do not live here, nor do their parents work here. These are not children of retired staff. The district acknowledges this but still the students remain in the school. Before we charge the teachers, let's at least remove the illegal students. I find this totally outrageous and can't even begin to come up with an explanation that would make sense. When the district failed to address this, it was brought to the school board's attention and they, too, have failed to act.

It makes sense that tax payers and residents are angered by the
nearly 100 out-of-district employee children receiving a free Scarsdale
education. The only myth here is the Scarsdale school district
response to this issue which is completely false and misleading. The
Journal News did a lengthy expose on this issue beginning last January
which clearly stated, based on FOIL requests, that Scarsdale had the
most out-of-district employee children enrolled in the region. No other
district came close. It's time to tell the truth! There is a huge cost
to having so many out-of-district children here whose parents don't
contribute a penny to the cost of their children's education. This is
not a contractually enforceable perk. In fact it's not accounted for in
any sort of tax or financial statements. This is in reality our own self-
inflicted unfunded mandate. It's disingenuous to be told by a
school administrator that there is only a "marginal" cost. Is it fair
and equitable for Scarsdale taxpayer children to be bumped potentially by
non-resident students who pay nothing for the limited spots in Civ Ed,
the Alternative School, varsity teams, honors and AT classes? Is it
really a "marginal" cost or rather a "hidden" cost to Scarsdale
residents and students which the Board of Education prefers not to
recognize and acknowledge? The State of New York sets guidelines
for tuition charges for out-of-district students. Districts may charge an
out-of-district student a figure in excess of $20,000/year for high
school, it is not capped at $5,000.

Lastly, teachers didn't altruistically "contribute" $2 million in salary.
Our school board agreed to extend the term of an already generous
teacher's contract for an extra year, prevent any layoffs of staff or
program reductions for two years, and gave one time $10,000 retirement
bonuses to staff for a small reduction in a percentage of salary
increases over two years. It was a negotiated deal not a one way give
back which, quite unfortunately, tied the district's hands for years.
By the way, the last point about staff/administrators to student ratios
is statistically misleading. The data is from all districts big and
small, not like sized districts which would show that our ratio is quite
generous.

Scarsdale not only allows children of staff/teachers to attend our schools for free, the administration even lets them remain in our schools for free after the staff/teachers no longer teaches at Scarsdale. How is that any justification?

Sports teams? Depriving kids of positions on sports teams. That's absurd. We have the most lenient cut policy of any school I know. Half the kids on most varsity teams don't belong. If you're child has not made a team or is not playing then.......to say it nicely he/she should probably not be playing the sport.

Charge staff kids $10k per year tuition. Make sports and extra-curriculars self-supporting - i.e., make participants pay the costs of the programs. As great for kids' development as team sports or clubs are, they are not critical to the educational mission. We are a public school system and can no longer afford non-mission critical luxuries. I guarantee you that none of the sports teams or clubs will fold. The participants' parents will foot the bill - as they should. Booster clubs can pay for kids whose financial situation is stressed. Eliminate funding for the Teen Center. This is an independent entity that taxpayers should not have to subsidize. Eliminate the recently added assistant principal slot in the high school. Eliminate the Mandarin program before its costs go even higher. Eliminate the Teachers in Charge positions in the elementary schools. Dare I say - increase class size maximums by 1 kid. Stop paying the absolute highest teachers' in the State of NY. That means making it abundantly clear to the union that this absurd policy is over and we will not be giving raises in the next contract. How's that for starters.

Here's some facts: Staff children are entitled to and do participate in Choice, the A School, and limited entry Honors classes. The A School is very popular these days and for the current year, more than 20 kids did not get in (including my kid). Honors classes require a certain minimum GPA in the subject and teacher approval. By their very nature, these are numbers-restricted classes. As for sports teams and extracurriculars (like the drama club), there are only a certain limited number of slots, and when non-resident kids fill those slots, obviously taxpayers' kids don't get those opportunities. Perhaps if staff kids' are better qualified, we have better teams and drama productions but that's not the point. Taxpayers' kids (or at least tuition paying kids) should not be foreclosed from those opportunities. It is not the taxpayers' job to educate staff kids for free when they take away sought after opportunities for our kids. Here's another outrage - kids in Choice are given IPads.

My children are in elementary school, so i don't know how things work in the MS/HS with all the "special programs" referenced here and in the previous article drawing many comments.

Is it a fact that staff children are allowed into the A School (where there is a lottery, I believe) or CHOICE or Honors classes? So they really do deprive residents' children of spots? Are there only X number of spots for an honors class? Kids are bumped from Honors classes? Are there numbers on this? Or is this thrown around without knowing the real answer?

I don't know why it would matter to have staff kids on sports teams. More the merry, and if they are gifted athletes -- even better for us.

I don't think charging 5K a year will make a dent in the problems we face as a district and a community with regard to our excellent schools. This issue seems petty to me, actually. If it helps to retain quality teachers - great.

OK - I will give all the hardcore proponents of the tax cap their tuition for out of district students. Clearly there is a high value of a Scarsdale education, which is why we all live here, so I will even give you the $10K value per student (which is the high-end of the range requested in these posts). I am not a supporter of the tax cap, but think that this is a reasonable request. The problem is that this change only drives $1MM in revenue, which puts you $7.5MM short of balancing the budget.

So, what else do you have? In order to make this conversation rationale, you need to come up with some more options b/c that $1MM only gets you 12% of the way there. So, I am all ears, waiting to hear more opportunities for cuts that will get us to the required $8.5MM. Without tangible cuts all you have put forth is a bunch of rhetoric on how our taxes are too high. Not helpful or productive

It is bogus to take the administration's word for justifying the various entitlements afforded teachers and faculty. The fact is Scarsdale has more non-tuition students than any other district in Westchester. It is not a difficult fact to confirm; just call the various Boards of Education in Westchester County. Also, many school districts charge tuition for out-of-district students, including children of teachers; Mamaroneck is just one example. The cost to citizens of non-tuition students is not marginal. It is substantial; our children are often denied limited slots in Civ Ed and the A-School when non-tuition students are accepted. How is that justifiable and reasonable? The fact that Scarsdale has carried on this practice for years without the community's approval does not make it sustainable or legal. It's just an illustration of the administration's arrogance and sense of entitlement. Furthermore, other districts, like Chappaqua, have held their school budgets to under 2% increases; Scarsdale has not. Scarsdale has the HIGHEST paid teachers in the state. There are many administrative positions which seem unnecessary. It is hard to defend the practices of the administration and the decisions of the school board. They have not served the best interests of the community. It is time to challenge their positions and demand fiscal responibility.

Well written commentary by "School Administration Spin..." and I whole-heartedly agree. The School Administration has spin for everything, so including this story to try to appease any taxpayers, raises questions of your editorial standards. As so eloquently put below, 95 students pay zero, zilch, nada. It is exhausting to hear the ridiculous "marginal incremental cost" argument. It is a free, no longer affordable perq. Post the Union for the next contract round that we have had to find fiscal discipline and that the teachers $100k+ salaries and benefits for 9.5 months of work is more than a fair wage to compensate them for their efforts (not to mention the thousands of dollars per month they make for tutoring top level students). We have had arts programs, after school sports, etc for years and years and years - does that mean we have a "contract" that holds the same legal weight that these programs cannot be abolished (similar to the Free Tuition Perq for teachers/administrators)?

It is time to nip this in the bud, rather than try to devise new ways to go around tax caps.

In the original article, Purvis was quick to list all the things that could/would get cut. A scare tactic. Give us more money or your kids will not get a good education, arts or after school programs was her strategy. The writers laid out examples of how to fund these programs. IE. Having teachers/administrators pay for their kids education if they do not live in Scarsdale. So please, lets bring this discussion back to where it started.

To report the School Administration's self-interested spin as "facts" does a disservice to the journalism profession. The Administration's "facts" are highly misleading. As to free tuition for non-resident children of staffers, there are currently 95 of them for which the cost of educating them is purportedly negligible. This claim is patently absurd. These kids take up teachers' time and gain entry to limited access programs such as the A school, honors classes, sports teams and other extracurriculars, depriving our taxpayers' kids of these opportunities. These opportunity costs to taxpayers are high and should not be understated. And while it may be true that class size breaks are not implemented in the elementary schools for staff kids, that is not at all true in the Middle School and the High School. Moreover, the extension of this privilege to staff children is not governed by contract. Even if this might be deemed to be past practice (and there are certainly contrary arguments), this is not a contractual entitlement, and the District can simply notify the union before the start of new contractual negotiations that times have changed and this can no longer be offered on a free unfettered basis. (I would propose charging these students a modest $5,000 or $10,000 per year tuition -- still a bargain. As to the school budget increases, because of the decline in property values in Scarsdale over the past 5 years, even though the tax levy increase has not exceeded 2%, the tax rate increase that actually directly impacts our tax bills has increased far more. For instance, Scarsdale residents paid 4.81% more in school taxes in the 2011-2012 budget and 5% more in 2007-2008 (when Mamaroneck Strip residents paid 13.79% more). Don't drink the District Kool-Aid.