{"id":17749,"date":"2023-10-31T20:32:07","date_gmt":"2023-11-01T00:32:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/?p=17749"},"modified":"2023-11-07T07:10:29","modified_gmt":"2023-11-07T12:10:29","slug":"following-the-money-at-the-boe-year-after-year-tps-district-bilked-taxpayers-for-security-transportation-and-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/board-of-education\/following-the-money-at-the-boe-year-after-year-tps-district-bilked-taxpayers-for-security-transportation-and-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Following the Money at the BOE: Year After Year, TPS District Bilked Taxpayers for Security, Transportation and More"},"content":{"rendered":"

Where do I vote? Click HERE to find out<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

A Review of Teaneck Public School Filings Show District Overcharged Taxpayers on Several Budgetary Items, including Transportation and Security<\/p>\n

Security<\/h3>\n

Despite significant security issues (including the removal of security guards and threats against schools), the Teaneck Public School District collected 100% of its security budget from taxpayers… but didn’t spend 25% of it.\u00a0 Where did it go?<\/p>\n

Busing \/ Transportation<\/h3>\n

Despite complaints about the cost of busing and the inability to meet required busing needs, records show that the District collected FAR IN EXCESS of what it spent on busing.\u00a0 In fact, in the last 3 years alone, the District pocketed $3M into “Fund Balance” to use as surplus funds… all from our tax dollars.<\/p>\n

What is happening within the Teaneck Public School Budgets?<\/span><\/h2>\n

25% of the District Security budget<\/span> went to discretionary fund balance?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Over $3M in local taxes set aside for busing students<\/span>, instead went to discretionary fund balance over the past 3 years?<\/strong><\/p>\n

2022\/23: Teaneck Schools – $6.94M ALLOCATED<\/u>\u00a0 for Transportation
\n2022\/23: Teaneck Schools – $5.73M ACTUALLY SPENT<\/span> for Transportation
\n2023\/24: Teaneck Schools – $7.67M, a 10.46% RAISE<\/span> to the Transportation Tax Levy, for an unprecedented $7.67M bill to taxpayers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You read that right — after pocketing $3M in local tax levy funds from residents that we were told would be used for busing & transportation, \u00a0the line item for busing in 2023-24 WENT UP AGAIN by 10.46% to $7.67M according to the 2023-24 Final Budget presentation<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

How could that be possible?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A few days after scores of parents attended a Board of Education meeting asking about the lack of security, I found myself asking these questions to the Teaneck School District Business Administrator.<\/p>\n

The ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Report)<\/h3>\n

The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)<\/a> is a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other governmental entity that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).<\/p>\n

“Exhibit C”<\/span> of the ACFR contains “Budgetary Comparison Schedules”.<\/p>\n

These schedules indicate the:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Final amount of the budgeted line item<\/li>\n
  2. Actual amount spent for the budgeted line item<\/li>\n
  3. Variance, or difference in the final amount budgeted and what was actually spent<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Here are some examples from the ACFR”<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    <\/td>Final Budget<\/th>Actual Spent<\/th>Variance (Difference)<\/th>Year<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Total Student Transportation Services<\/td>$6,069,994<\/td>

    $4,489,077<\/p><\/td>

    $1,580,917<\/p><\/td>

    		2021<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total Student Transportation Services<\/td>$6,499,755<\/td>

    $5,736,648 <\/p><\/td>

    $763,107<\/p><\/td>

    		2022<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total Student Transportation Services<\/td>$5,706,667<\/td>

    $4,975,660<\/p><\/td>

    $731,007<\/p><\/td>

    		2020
    \n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total:<\/td>$18,276,416<\/td>

    $9,464,737<\/p><\/td>

    $3,075,031<\/p><\/td>

    		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    <\/td>Final Budget<\/th>Actual Spent<\/th>Variance (Difference)<\/th>Year<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Total Security Budget<\/td>$1,134,695<\/td>

    $855,873<\/p><\/td>

    $278,822

    <\/td>

    		2022<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total Security Budget<\/td>$383,161<\/td>

    $383,161<\/p><\/td>

    $0<\/p><\/td>

    		2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total Security Budget<\/td>$548,073<\/td>

    545,723<\/p?<\/td>

    $2,350<\/p><\/td>

    		2021
    \n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

    ACFR Data (available on NJ State Website<\/a>):<\/p>\n