WEST MILFORD The school budget lost by just 0.1 percent of votes last month and the council responded last week by trimming the same budget by almost the same percentage. That translates to a $7 difference between the increase the average taxpayer would have paid and what they will pay. Because the school budget was defeated (by three votes) the township council must take responsibility for cutting the school budget by a figure it deems appropriate. In this case, that figure ended up at $67,500, reducing the total to $44,904,812 approximately one-fifteenth of one percent of the original budget. School board members, as well as School Superintendent Glenn Kamp and district Business Administrator Steven Cea, had a joint meeting with the town council. Auditor Matt Donohue (hired by the town) read his report in which he identified a total of $135,000 in possible cuts. This was an enhanced version of his findings, as requested by the council, from Donohue’s original report, released on May 9, which targeted only $75,000 for potential savings. Superintendent Kamp spoke first, setting the tone for the board of education in their response to Donohue’s report. “I was a little bit surprised quite frankly at the May 9 recommendation of $75,000 deductions,” said Kamp, “the $135,000 is obviously incomprehensible.” Kamp went on to explain how far the district has gone to limit its spending in the hope of persuading voters to accept their budget. Kamp said, “When you look at per pupil spending compared to the rest of the state last year West Milford public schools spent $1189 less per pupil than the average of the state.” In a plea to the council Kamp said, “I would hope that you, for the children of West Milford, not make any deductions tonight. I think three votes is not an edict or demand to take action.” Kamp also hoped to appease the council by suggesting a maximum of $30,000 in deductions, $10,000 for each of the three votes the budget lost by. Council member Dr. Sal Schimmenti identified that the school administrators produced a budget that was too lean. Schimmenti said, “Maybe you didn’t ask for enough...If you had asked for more it [the vote] might have went that way but we would have had more to work with. Maybe you did too good a job.” The amount of the final cut was proposed by Councilman Phil Weisbecker. “I don’t know that we have to cut this by $135,000,” said Weisbecker, “half of it $67,500 is where personally as a councilman I would leave it.” Further suggested reductions ranging from $61,640 to the full $135,000 by council member were considered but Weisbecker’s figure won the day. The final cut saw $41,640 taken from subsidizing the food service fund, $20,000 from a fund dedicated to pay cafeteria aides to be replaced by the surplus already in the food service fund and $5,860 from the schools energy budget. The school board is, however, under no obligation to reduce their budget in the areas the council identified, only to lower their final figure by that $67,500 amount. The newly reduced budget will alter the rise in average property taxes billed for school funding from a $160 increase to approximately $153.